BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

Spoliation Advisory Panel

Resolved,
	That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before the House a Return of the Report from Sir Donnell Deeny, Chairman of the Spoliation Advisory Panel, dated 19 November 2014, in respect of four Nymphenburg porcelain figures in the possession of the Cecil Higgins Art Gallery, Bedford.—(Dr Thérèse Coffey.)

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

CABINET OFFICE

The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—

Government Digital Service

Sheryll Murray: What recent progress the Government Digital Service has made on moving public services online.

Francis Maude: We have designed and created the award-winning and world-leading gov.uk, the central web domain for Government information. We are redesigning 25 major Government services to make them simpler, clearer and faster to use. That will not only provide savings to the taxpayer, but improve delivery for the public, focused on user need, not Government convenience.

Sheryll Murray: What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to make sure that individuals who are not digitised, many of whom live in rural constituencies such as mine, are not disadvantaged if they cannot access digitised public services or can do so only at low speeds?

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When, on the recommendation of Baroness Lane-Fox, we adopted the digital-by-default approach—if it can be done online, it should be done only online—we stressed that there must be an assisted digital alternative for those who are not online, and we will ensure that that is the case.

Barry Sheerman: May I congratulate the Minister on much of the innovative work he has done in the digital area, thanks to Martha Lane Fox, the Cross-Bench Member of the House of Lords? Will he, however, take on board the fact that
	older people in this country find it very difficult to make the transition from the traditional to a digital way of communicating with the Government?

Francis Maude: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his compliment. We are trying to make a lot of progress, and the British Government are now regarded as world-leading, after having been, frankly, a byword for failure in Government IT. Other Governments are now using the source code for gov.uk, and imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Baroness Lane-Fox leads the Go ON UK charity, which is dedicated to getting more people online, which is the key purpose. When we provide the assisted digital option, we ideally want to frame contracts so that they incentivise the provider not just to provide a service, but to use it to help individuals to get online so that their lives are enriched more widely.

James Gray: In answer to the very good question from my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray), the Minister responded that those, like many in my constituency, who have no access to computers and are not online will be given something called an “assisted digital alternative”. Will he perhaps tell us what that is?

Francis Maude: It can take many forms, but the point is that the service is provided or the transaction is conducted digitally—it is conducted online—although not necessarily by the citizen themselves. For example, it could be done in a library, where someone sits alongside the citizen to help them to input data or conduct the transaction, or it could be done on the telephone, with someone on the other end to put data into the web service. There are a lot of different ways of providing it, and they will be fashioned around the needs of the user, not the convenience of the Government.

Chi Onwurah: In the spring, the Minister announced his digital inclusion strategy to exclude 5 million people. In the summer, he told pensioners to get online or lose access to Government services. In the autumn, farmers found that they needed a credit reference from Experian to apply for common agricultural policy grants. The list of people he is excluding grows day by day. Next week, a report for the Labour party will highlight the impact of his policies on the most vulnerable, and how a Labour Government will change that. How many more people does he intend to exclude from public services before he is voted out of office?

Francis Maude: I invite the hon. Lady to dream on, on that front. Her party is ill-equipped to criticise us. The last Labour Government’s definition of an online service was enabling people to download a form from the web, print it off, fill it in by hand and send it off by post. They regarded that as an online transaction—they were not quite in the modern world. We are glad that she is catching up, but she still has a long way to go.

Charities (Legislation)

Henry Bellingham: When he next plans to meet the Charity Commission to discuss the operation of legislation relating to charities.

Rob Wilson: I met the chair of the Charity Commission, William Shawcross, and its chief executive officer, Paula Sussex, last month, shortly before we published the draft Protection of Charities Bill. I will continue to meet them on a regular basis.

Henry Bellingham: I welcome my hon. Friend to his well-deserved appointment. Does he agree that, under its new leadership, the Charity Commission is proving to be a much more effective regulator than it was a few years ago? Does he agree also that any organisation that encourages extremism of any kind should lose its charitable status and that, although the Charity Commission is getting tougher, it needs to get tougher still?

Rob Wilson: I do indeed. In the past, the Charity Commission was rightly criticised for regulatory failings. It now has new leadership, as I mentioned, with a strong board and a new chief executive officer. The Prime Minister has just given it an additional £8 million, and it will hopefully get new powers through the draft Protection of Charities Bill.
	I think that my hon. Friend was referring to the concerns that were expressed on the front page of The Times this week about the threat from terrorism and extremism. The House needs to recognise that there is a threat to charities of abuse for terrorism purposes. For example, three men were convicted in 2013 for fraudulently using Muslim Aid charity logos to collect £14,000. I am right behind the Charity Commission in its efforts to ensure that it is a strong and robust organisation.

Susan Elan Jones: I am glad that the charities Minister will meet the Charity Commission. As a matter of urgency, will he also meet Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and his colleagues in the Treasury to sort out the nonsense whereby smaller charities in particular find it difficult to set up the gift aid system? That is a correct tax relief, but it is not going to many charities because of the red tape involved.

Rob Wilson: I will be happy to meet HMRC. I would say that we have the autumn statement coming up, and the hon. Lady might like to look out for anything that might appear in it.

Richard Fuller: In his discussions with the Charity Commission, will the Minister see how it can encourage the development of charitable community funds that tap into the desire of local people to support local charities?

Rob Wilson: I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that he does. I hope that he and people in his constituency will support Giving Tuesday, which is on 2 December. That is a great opportunity for smaller charities to raise substantial sums of money and I hope that he will support it along with me.

Youth Services Provision

Paul Blomfield: What steps he is taking to maintain the level of youth services provision.

Rob Wilson: We are working to offer practical support to the youth sector at a time when local authorities continue to make difficult decisions on how to deliver services. Our support focuses on promoting delivery models for innovative services, including mutuals, and better measurement of the impact of youth services on the lives of young people.

Paul Blomfield: Last week, BBC Look North revealed that more than £30 million had been cut from youth services across Yorkshire—deep cuts that had been forced on councils by the disproportionate reduction in local authority funding for areas with the highest need. What discussions is the Minister having with colleagues in other Departments about the impact of those cuts on young people?

Rob Wilson: I am slightly surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman’s criticisms, because I did not notice his campaigning in Sheffield on the cuts made by his local authority and I could not find a single letter that he has written to the Department about those cuts. Sheffield city council is one of 10 local authorities that are co-operating with the Government to transform youth services using the new delivery models that we are talking about. I would add that we are working with the youth sector to launch the centre for social impact, which will make it much easier for the youth sector to justify the things that it does and to get the buy-in of local authorities to keep those services going.

Margot James: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Gavin Pardoe and his team, who have accessed finance from the Charity Bank, Sport England and many other sources to build a magnificent new skate and BMX park in Stourbridge that opens next week?

Rob Wilson: I do indeed join in congratulating Gavin Pardoe and the able team that supported him. I understand that it is a state-of-the-art skate park that will draw in people from right across the west midlands. I also congratulate my hon. Friend on her role in bringing it about, because it sounds like a wonderful facility for young people in the area.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The Minister will know that youth provision is not statutory provision, and that it is therefore vulnerable to local authority cuts. He will perhaps have seen the early-day motion that has been signed by Members from throughout the House, suggesting that there should be positive discussions now about making youth services a statutory provision.

Rob Wilson: I have seen the hon. Gentleman’s early-day motion, and we believe in supporting a statutory position, but it is important that local authorities have the right to make decisions about their local area. The Government do not wish to be too prescriptive in directing local authorities on what they should and should not do. For that reason, we do not support his early-day motion.

Bob Blackman: In my constituency, the Cedars youth centre, which is a partnership between Watford football club, Harrow council and the Government, is an extremely successful example of how youth services
	can be transformed. Does my hon. Friend agree that such a service is the way forward for youth services, and would he like to visit the centre and see for himself the excellent work that is being done?

Rob Wilson: I can feel a number of visits to hon. Members’ constituencies coming on. I congratulate my hon. Friend’s council on the work that it is doing. It is possible to innovate and make youth services even better and more efficient, so we do not have to accept the Opposition’s counsel of despair.

Teresa Pearce: The National Audit Office has said today in a report on local government funding cuts that the Government fail to monitor the impact of funding reductions on local services. The report into the exploitation of girls in Rotherham cited youth workers as repeatedly having raised serious concerns—they were often the only people to do so—which shows that youth workers are often the only dependable adult in vulnerable children’s lives. Will the Minister assure me that he will monitor carefully the impact of local government cuts to youth services and the effects on child safety, and report his findings back to the House?

Rob Wilson: Obviously the Rotherham child sex abuse case is complex, and most of the responsibility for the matter lies within the Department for Education, but the hon. Lady makes a good point. It is important that we all learn lessons across Government, and the Cabinet Office is as keen as any other Department to do so.

SMEs (Government Procurement)

Yasmin Qureshi: What recent steps he has taken to address barriers to small and medium-sized enterprises participating in Government procurement.

Francis Maude: Central Government spend with SMEs increased from £3 billion in 2009-10 to £4.5 billion in 2012-13. They benefited from a further £4 billion in indirect spend through the supply chain, so we are on track to deliver our ambition that 25% of Government’s direct and indirect spend should be with SMEs. In addition, we are implementing further changes to procurement rules that will benefit small businesses.

Yasmin Qureshi: The majority of local authorities are still not using the Government’s Contracts Finder, resulting in local SMEs losing out on opportunities. What are Ministers doing to ensure that more local authorities submit their procurement opportunities to the website?

Francis Maude: I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the fact that a new and greatly improved version of Contracts Finder will be launched early in the new year. It is a massive opportunity for local authorities to procure better and cheaper, but also to be able to support local businesses. There are now more than 1,000 suppliers on our G-Cloud framework, 87% of which are SMEs, a number of them based in Bolton. They are all now able to provide services directly to public sector purchasers, which helps growth and jobs as well as providing better value for the taxpayer.

Charlie Elphicke: What is being done to encourage innovative SMEs to get in on public procurement, and will the Minister update the House on the effectiveness of the mystery shopper tool?

Francis Maude: We have enabled suppliers who suspect that a procurement is being done in the old-fashioned way that we inherited to raise it directly with my officials in the Cabinet Office, who can then intervene with the public sector procurer-commissioner to ensure that it is done in the modern way, which does not exclude small businesses from supplying to Government in the way that was routinely the case in the past. We have made a huge amount of progress, but we still have a long way to go.

Trade Union Subscriptions (Civil Service)

Ann McKechin: What his policy is on the deduction of trade union subscriptions from payroll in the civil service.

Francis Maude: The policy is delegated to individual Departments.

Ann McKechin: I am interested in the Minister’s response because I understand that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has been writing e-mails and letters to other Secretaries of State, asking them not to write off. Will the Minister confirm whether that is correct, and will he make clear all correspondence between him and other Liberal Democrat Ministers concerning their opposition to this Tory attack plan on worker representation?

Francis Maude: I can do no better than quote a member of the Public and Commercial Services Union—she is just identified as June—who said that direct debit is
	“the easiest way of paying my union subs. You know then that it’s going to get paid because you’re not dependent on your employer taking it from your wages. I think it’s better.”
	I agree with June.

Andrew Jones: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the relationship between trade unions and their members ought to be direct and not intermediated by the civil service?

Francis Maude: As the PCS said in the document from which I quoted, check-off is an archaic way of operating that pre-dates the existence of bank accounts and direct debits. Most civil service unions use direct debits, not check-off, because they think that is the modern, direct way for an organisation to have a relationship with its members.

Helen Jones: The Department for Work and Pensions estimated that the cost of ending check-off across Departments was £1 million. The Minister denies that, so will he tell the House exactly how much it will cost to implement what is a political attack by the Conservative party, rather than a policy worthy of Government?

Francis Maude: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point and she is completely correct to say that an official produced the figure of £1 million. However, when asked for the workings and calculations that underpinned that number they were unable to produce
	them, and it turned out to be a completely fictional number. The correct calculation of the cost is more likely to be a negative number and a saving to the taxpayer, as well as being a measure that enables PCS to do what its members now prefer and have a direct relationship with them.

Jonathan Ashworth: The Paymaster General has reiterated his support for getting rid of check-off, even though the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has written to Departments saying that there could be legal costs associated with that. A leaked HMRC memo talks about marginalising the unions, which could lead to industrial action among civil service unions. Does that show that Ministers are playing irresponsible party politics with the trade unions, and that the right hon. Gentleman should abandon his plans to get rid of check-off?

Francis Maude: It is always reassuring to find that the old truths turn out to be enduring and that Labour speaks for its paymasters, the trade unions.

Topical Questions

Brian H Donohoe: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Francis Maude: My responsibilities are for efficiency and reform, civil service issues, public sector industrial relation strategy, Government transparency, civil contingencies, civil society and cyber-security.

Brian H Donohoe: The right hon. Gentleman is also responsible for the list of Ministers’ interests, and it is some time since that was done—I wonder when it will be. I am interested to know whether his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is still a honorary member of the Irvine Burns club, and whether the Minister still lists the Blind Trust as part of his financial interests, and whether we can see where we are going on this subject.

Francis Maude: I have no idea what that was all about, but I am sure it can be pursued through different channels.

Jeremy Lefroy: My constituents Callum Brogan and Parvathi Thara have been selected as National Citizen Service leaders for 2014-15, and have told me how much the NCS means to them. Will my hon. Friend tell me his future plans for the NCS?

Rob Wilson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work with his local NCS, and all Members across the House who also take an interest in the programme. I wish his two constituents the best of luck next year as NCS leaders. The programme has consistently demonstrated, through independent evaluations, that it delivers more capable, confident and engaged young people, and up to £6.10 in benefits for every £1 spent. It continues to grow and it saw its 100,000th participant this summer.

Lucy Powell: It is good to see the Deputy Prime Minister this morning talking up family friendly working, but what is the right hon. Gentleman doing to ensure best practice on family friendly across the civil service, in particular on access to high quality and high level part-time and flexible opportunities? Is it not about time that the Government showed leadership, instead of lecturing others on what they are not doing?

Francis Maude: I warmly welcome the hon. Lady to her post. I have slightly lost count, but on my reckoning she is the fifth incumbent of the shadow post and I am sure the best. I look forward to a warm relationship with her over the coming period.
	On the hon. Lady’s valid point about the need for the Government to exercise leadership in providing family friendly opportunities for flexible working, I very much agree that we should do that, and we are already doing that. We are providing more opportunities and we think there are significant productivity improvements in enabling people to work more flexibly. However, it is always to be stressed that it is not an entitlement; it has to be according to the needs of the business.

Neil Carmichael: What assessment has the Minister made of Labour’s proposals for a mansion tax on legacy giving, which is so appreciated by our charities?

Rob Wilson: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I did notice that the Leader of the Opposition had a very compelling economics lesson on TV the other evening, when Myleene Klass said:
	“You can’t just point at things and tax them.”
	That is hardly a thought-through strategy. We have heard voices within the Labour party itself—

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister should resume his seat. His answer suffers from one principal disadvantage: it has absolutely nothing to do with his important responsibilities as a newly appointed junior Minister, with which of course we wish him well.

Andrew Gwynne: Several Ministers, including, it has to be said, the Prime Minister, fail to handle data with a certain amount of precision. Indeed, two weeks ago the Prime Minister told the House that there were 1,000 extra GPs when in actual fact there are 36 fewer. Will the Minister, who is responsible for consistency and co-ordination across government, clamp down on these bad practices and perhaps help the Prime Minister to correct the record today?

Francis Maude: We are really not going to take any lectures on this kind of thing from the party that brought the whole idea of fiction writing into dispute during its time in office.

Stephen Metcalfe: Like the Minister I, too, have seen at first hand the benefits of the National Citizen Service and believe that every young person would benefit from taking part in the programme. Will he
	tell the House how he intends to increase both participation and the availability of the programme across the whole UK?

Rob Wilson: I thank my hon. Friend for the efforts he is making in his constituency to support the NCS. He spoke this year at the regional awards and promotes the programme in local schools. I am delighted that the NCS has taken part in every local authority across the country this year. There are projects now in Wales and Northern Ireland, and my officials are in discussions with the Scottish Government to explore the possibility of a pilot in Scotland.

Hugh Bayley: During this Parliament, the National Statistics Authority has repeatedly had to write to Ministers to ask them to correct misleading or false statements on the growth of the national debt, the amount the Government spend on flood protection and much else, and to ask the Government in future to publish the figures as quality assured official statistics. Do the Government agree it is now time to change the law?

Rob Wilson: I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that all correspondence to the UK Statistics Authority is publicly available on its website, but he will also know that it has responded to both the Government and the Opposition on the issue of statistics, such as when it wrote on 24 July concerning incorrect employment figures used by the Leader of the Opposition and a shadow Business Minister—

Mr Speaker: Order. We are going to get one more question in because we want answers about Government policy. The Minister will learn gradually.

Andrew Percy: I have previously praised the important role parish councillors play during national emergencies, as they did in my constituency during the flooding last year, but the picture nationally remains patchy in terms of parish councils with emergency plans in place. May I urge the Minister, ahead of this winter, to push again to ensure that parish councils take up their responsibility for emergency planning?

Francis Maude: My hon. Friend, who works hard in this area, makes a valid point, and I will ensure it is taken onboard and acted on.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Graham Jones: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 November.

David Cameron: I am sure the whole House will join me in condemning the senseless attack in a synagogue in West Jerusalem this week, in which five people were killed. One of the victims was a dual Israeli-UK citizen, Rabbi Avraham Goldberg, and we send our deepest condolences to his family and friends, as well as to the families of the other victims. This was an appalling act of terror, and we condemn all acts of this kind.
	This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Graham Jones: I think the whole House will echo the Prime Minister’s comments regarding the incident in Israel. It is a tragedy we are all deeply concerned about.
	How confident is the Prime Minister that he will not see further defections to UKIP?

David Cameron: There is only one way to secure an in/out referendum on Europe, and that is to back a Conservative victory at the next election.

Andrew Bridgen: In 2007—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Bridgen must be heard.

Andrew Bridgen: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	In 2007 the Conservatives gained control of North West Leicestershire district council following 30 years of Labour maladministration and inherited the worst quality council housing in the country. I am pleased to announce that by the middle of next year all the homes in North West Leicestershire will be up to the decent homes standard. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the Conservative group, and does he agree that it is another demonstration of the fact that Labour does not fix the roof when the sun is shining?

David Cameron: I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating North West Leicestershire district council on the work it has done. It is vital that we bring poor quality housing up to standard, and the results it has achieved are good, but it is also important that we get Britain building, and that is now well under way.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Ed Miliband.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Edward Miliband: Let us see whether they are still cheering on Friday, Mr Speaker.
	I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Rabbi Avraham Goldberg, who was murdered in the horrific terrorist attack in Jerusalem, and to the other victims. It was an appalling act, and all my sympathies are with their families and friends.
	Will the Prime Minister tell us why he is so in favour of the bedroom tax but so against the mansion tax?

David Cameron: First, I make this prediction: the people behind me will still be cheering the right hon. Gentleman on Friday.
	On the views of close colleagues, it is worth listening to what the new shadow Cabinet member in charge of the election, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell), said about the Leader of the Opposition. She said there was a
	“wider concern in the public whether he has the leadership qualities to lead his own party, let alone the country.”
	I knew we had moles in the Labour movement; I just did not know they were that high up.
	The spare room subsidy is a basic issue of fairness: people do not get the subsidy if they are in private sector rented accommodation, so in our view they should not get it in public sector rented accommodation. It is as simple as that.

Edward Miliband: In case he has forgotten, two of the people behind the right hon. Gentleman have jumped ship—and the others are waiting for the result to see whether they should follow.
	The Prime Minister tries to defend the bedroom tax. Let me tell him that on the bedroom tax the Government are today going to court against a victim of domestic violence who has been raped, assaulted, harassed and stalked by her ex-partner and is going to be charged the bedroom tax on her panic room. She is one of 280 victims of domestic violence in this category. Will the right hon. Gentleman remind us why that is the right thing to do?

David Cameron: This is why we have a discretionary housing payment system with money made available for council after council, and up to date that money has been underspent.

Edward Miliband: He does not know the facts—[Interruption.]

Mr Speaker: Order. The answers from the Prime Minister have not always been fully heard and they must be, and the questions from the Leader of the Opposition have not always been fully heard and they must be. I remind the House that that is what our voters, the electorate, would expect—some decent behaviour, and robust but courteous exchange.

Edward Miliband: The Prime Minister does not know the facts. Many of these victims of domestic violence are not getting the hardship payment, and protecting the victims of domestic violence should not be a matter of discretion; it is a matter of principle. Nothing better illustrates the contrast of values between those on this side of the House and those on that side of it.
	Now let us talk about the mansion tax—[Interruption.] Yes. A penthouse in Hyde park recently sold for £140 million. Is the right hon. Gentleman really saying that someone living in that penthouse should pay the same annual property tax as someone living in a house worth a fraction of that value?

David Cameron: We have made sure that the richest in our country have made a contribution by putting up stamp duty. We put up stamp duty on empty properties, and we are properly charging foreigners who come and invest in our country. The point is that we need a growing economy that is providing the jobs and the livelihoods for our people. That is what we are getting, whereas what the right hon. Gentleman has had in the last week is a pasting from a pop star.

Edward Miliband: That is exactly what I expect from this Prime Minister. He feels the pain only of people struggling to find a £2 million garage. That is this Prime Minister. Let me tell him why we need a mansion tax. It is because the NHS is going backwards on his watch. Will he explain why it was announced this morning that
	the NHS has missed its cancer waiting time target for the third quarter in a row, meaning that 5,500 people waited more than 62 days for treatment?

David Cameron: We are certainly not seeing a class act opposite. In the last week, the right hon. Gentleman has been called useless, hopeless, out of his depth, does not cut it and an absolute disaster—and that is just what his Front Benchers think. He asks about cancer standards, and the number of people treated for cancer is up 50% under this Government. We have put £12.7 billion extra into the NHS—money he thought was irresponsible—and we are meeting nine of the 10 cancer standards.

Edward Miliband: The right hon. Gentleman has absolutely no answer on the NHS. This is a target that he pledged to meet, and Cancer Research UK— [Interruption.] I know they do not want to listen to Cancer Research UK. It says:
	“This isn’t just about missed targets…thousands of patients are being failed.”
	He is missing his cancer targets—[Interruption.] No, actually, they are doing a better job on cancer targets in Wales than they are here. He is missing his cancer targets and he is missing his A and E targets. Let me put it to him in terms that he might be capable of answering. On his visit to Rochester and Strood, has he had time to explain to people why over the last three months nearly 4,000 people waited more than four hours for A and E, and more than 700 people waited more than four hours on trolleys?

David Cameron: I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what is happening in the NHS. The number of nurses is up by 2,500 under this Government, and the number of doctors is up by 8,000 under this Government. Millions more patients are being treated, all because we put in the extra money that Labour said was irresponsible.
	The right hon. Gentleman made a point about Wales. Let me just give him the facts. The last time A and E targets were met in Wales was March 2008. The last time the urgent cancer treatment target was met in Wales was 2008. What is the difference between Wales and England? In England the Tories are in charge, putting more money in and reforming our NHS. In Wales Labour is in charge, cutting the NHS and missing targets.

Edward Miliband: The truth is that the NHS is going backwards on the Prime Minister’s watch, and the British people know it. We are going to campaign on the NHS between now and the general election, because the Prime Minister has failed—he has failed on the NHS. We all know why this Prime Minister thinks the bedroom tax is great and the mansion tax to fund the NHS is terrible. If you have big money, you have a friend in this Prime Minister. If you have not, he could not care less.

David Cameron: I think it fair to say that the right hon. Gentleman’s week has not got any better. This was the week in which Myleene Klass wiped the floor with him in a television programme, and this was the week in which an opinion poll in Scotland showed that more
	people believe in the Loch Ness monster than believe in his leadership. The only problem for the Labour party is that he does actually exist.

Tim Farron: rose—

Hon. Members: More!

Tim Farron: You are all very kind.
	The impact of excessive second home ownership on rural communities is that it removes demand from GPs’ surgeries, village schools, rural bus services and post offices, and those services often close as a result. Will the Prime Minister agree to allow an increase in the council tax on wealthy second home owners in order to create a ring-fenced fund to support those vital rural services?

David Cameron: We have allowed councils to charge more tax on second homes, and many have taken advantage of that. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to build more houses to ensure that the village school, the village post office and the village pub are given the support that they need, and under this Government that is happening.

Stephen Hepburn: The Jarrow NHS walk-in centre, which sees more than 27,000 patients a year, is due to close. The management tell me that that is because of cuts that they have to make. Will the Prime Minister refute that? Alternatively, will he intervene with the reckless management up in the north-east who are cutting the NHS in his name, and stop this stupid closure now?

David Cameron: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman what is actually happening in the NHS in south Tyneside. Clinical commissioning group funding is going up by 2%, and is more than £225 million this year. As for the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman raised, according to the figures more than 50,000 patients attended South Tyneside general hospital A and E, of whom 60% did not require treatment. That is why new investment is going into the urgent care hub that is being proposed by the local managers and clinicians in his constituency.

John Glen: In Salisbury and south Wiltshire, unemployment has fallen by 60% since the Government took office. Youth unemployment is down by two thirds, and across the county of Wiltshire the number of young people in training and employment is set to exceed pre-recession levels. Does the Prime Minister agree that we are on a clear path to improving living standards further for all, and that the Labour party would put that into reverse?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we have seen in the last year is the biggest fall in unemployment since records began. We have more people in work in our country than ever before in our history. We have seen the first rise in the minimum wage ahead of inflation since Labour’s disastrous recession, and today we are taking further steps by banning exclusivity in zero-hours contracts.
	Our plan is working, and the British people are seeing the results. There are still warning signs out there about the global economy, but we need to stick our plan, and deliver wealth and prosperity for our people.

Anas Sarwar: Across the United Kingdom, there are two Governments redistributing wealth from the poorest to the richest. The Labour alternative is to have a 50p tax band and a mansion tax to provide money for our vital public services and a bankers bonus tax to provide a compulsory jobs guarantee for young people—policies opposed by both the Tories and the shouting Scottish nationalists. Does that not tell us that in Scotland we face a clear choice in May: you go to bed with the Scottish National party, you wake up with this man as Prime Minister?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman is simply wrong. In this year alone, 500,000 more people are in work. There have been cuts in unemployment and fewer people claiming benefit in his constituency. That is what is happening. I know that it is not convenient for the Labour narrative but the fact is that inequality is down; child poverty is down; the number of people in relative poverty is down. Those are the facts. Labour Members do not like them but they cannot hide from them.

Crispin Blunt: Thank you for calling me, Mr Speaker—I had not spotted the opportunity.
	The Prime Minister will know that the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 was built on the twin pillars of equality and support for marriage. Will he now put a rocket under the Ministry of Justice to ensure that, under this Administration, we can deliver the same rights for those who want to celebrate their marriage as humanists?

David Cameron: We said at the time of the debate in the House of Lords that there would be consultation on this issue and that is exactly what is happening.

Gareth Thomas: Northwick Park hospital, which serves my constituency, has seen an unprecedented increase in the numbers going to A and E, given the closure of Central Middlesex A and E department and the continuing weekday closure of Alexandra Avenue polyclinic. Given that the hospital management believe that an extra 120 medical beds are necessary and local people want the clinic to be fully reopened, will the Prime Minister ask the Secretary of State for Health to address those concerns urgently?

David Cameron: Of course I will discuss that matter with the Secretary of State for Health, but I will do that in the context of what the hon. Gentleman knows, which is that, in his constituency, the A and E unit at Northwick Park hospital is getting a £21 million upgrade and is due to open in December. That is because our long-term economic plan is working and we are putting money into the NHS. This goes to a bigger truth: we can only have a strong NHS if we have a strong economy.

John Baron: The Prime Minister has gone further than his predecessors in recognising our nuclear test veterans, but actions speak louder than words. Given how poorly they have been treated compared with veterans in other countries and the fact that one in three of their children have a serious medical condition, with 20% of conceptions ending prematurely, and in the hope that this PMQ will be third time lucky, will the Government make an ex gratia payment of £25 million to a charitable fund to help those veterans and descendants in need? After all, we only had to ask them once to do their duty and stand in front of a nuclear bomb.

David Cameron: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has been dogged in pursuit of this very important cause. There is a very important ruling out today that has serious implications and it is right that we consider our response carefully. I have asked the Defence Secretary to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the implications for the nuclear test veteran community. I listened very carefully to what he said about the ex gratia fund. This Government have taken the time to deal with some of the difficult issues, such as war widows, which we effectively solved last week, and the long-term injustice of there not being medals for Arctic convoy veterans and the clasp for Bomber Command veterans. I am determined that we deal with this issue. I hope that my hon. Friend will bear with me while we have further discussions, but I do want us to try to seek a resolution to the issue.

Nigel Dodds: Given the Prime Minister’s observation that red lights are flashing on the dashboard of the world’s economy, does he agree that, in relation to Northern Ireland’s economy, he could take two positive measures very soon: first, to devolve corporation tax powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly; and secondly, to put pressure on energy companies to reduce the price of home heating oil as well as petrol and diesel because of the very high dependence in Northern Ireland on that type of energy? Will he take action on those two fronts immediately?

David Cameron: The right hon. Gentleman makes important points. On off-grid heating oil and the costs, more needs to be done to put pressure on companies not just in Northern Ireland but across the UK. On the issue of corporation tax, I maintain the commitments that I have made before about what we will be saying and when we will be saying it, but as we address this issue we are also going to have to look carefully at the Northern Ireland budget, and to ensure that the budget is working and that the Government of Northern Ireland are working, because that is an important part of the overall picture.

Stephen Mosley: This week I am launching my latest small business awards in Chester, ahead of Small Business Saturday on Saturday 6 December. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating small businesses that have helped generate our economic recovery and will he commit to shopping small and shopping local on Small Business Saturday?

David Cameron: I can certainly make that commitment and that is what I will be doing on Saturday. Small Business Saturday is an excellent initiative, and I urge all hon. Members to get behind it. In terms of
	helping small businesses, it is worth noting that we are cutting the jobs tax of businesses and charities by up to £2,000, we are abolishing national insurance contributions for under-21-year-olds, we are extending the doubling of small business rate relief and we have cut corporation tax to small business. Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, and they know that in this Government they have got a true friend.

David Winnick: Is the Prime Minister aware that the hateful bedroom tax will be remembered just like the Tory poll tax, which destroyed Margaret Thatcher’s premiership? He should be ashamed that such a notorious tax came in on his watch.

David Cameron: What the hon. Gentleman and others on the Labour Benches have to explain is why it is right that people in private rented accommodation who are claiming housing benefit do not get a spare room subsidy but they think people who are living in council housing should get a spare room subsidy. The second question they are going to have to answer is why did they oppose £83 billion of reductions in welfare which has helped us to maintain spending on health and schools, while taking 3 million of the poorest people out of tax altogether?

Laurence Robertson: Earlier this year 20-year-old Hollie Gazzard was one of two girls murdered in my constituency by former partners. Her father, Mr Nick Gazzard, has since set up the Hollie Gazzard Trust, one of the objectives being to promote the teaching of personal, social, health and economic education in schools. That is mentioned in the new national curriculum but the trust feels it needs to be compulsory for all schools and that it needs to be taught by external specialists. Will the Prime Minister help with this?

David Cameron: I will look very carefully at what my hon. Friend says. First, I would like to send my deepest condolences, and those of the whole House, to Hollie’s family, following her brutal murder. I would also like to pay tribute to the Hollie Gazzard Trust, set up by her family, for its high-quality programme of classes aimed at educating young people about domestic abuse. What we have said is that sex education should always include relationship education as well, and that goes for all schools.

Caroline Lucas: Rents are sky-high and house prices in Brighton rose 13% in the last quarter alone. Nurses’ wages were recommended to go up by 1% yet the Prime Minister’s Government are blocking even this tiny rise. How does he expect hospitals like the Royal Sussex to be able to recruit enough nurses if they simply cannot afford to live in the area?

David Cameron: First, we are making a huge investment in the Royal Sussex hospital and that will have its effect, but I have to say to the hon. Lady that she says house prices are rising and are unaffordable, but I have never come across a Green party politician who is in favour of building houses anywhere for anyone.

David Mowat: During his recent visit to Warrington the Prime Minister will have seen at first hand our increasingly severe traffic issues. I thank him for ensuring that the local growth deal will deliver a new crossing near the town centre, but may I say that what we really need is a new high-level crossing, something that has been planned but not delivered for nearly 30 years now?

David Cameron: I will look very carefully at what my hon. Friend says. I enjoyed my visit to his constituency, and he is right: I could see the problems of congestion, but I could also see how the long-term economic plan is working in his constituency in terms of jobs and growth. He is also right about the local growth deal, which for Warrington and Cheshire is worth over £140 million in terms of Government funding, and that does include support for the new swing bridge, which will help to tackle the congestion as well as unlock important building sites.

William McCrea: The people of Northern Ireland welcome the success of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, assisted by secret recordings made by the British intelligence services, in bringing seven suspected terrorists, including terrorist godfathers, to court on charges of serious violent republican activity. Customs officials close an illicit fuel plant in Northern Ireland every 10 days. The profits from those operations have bankrolled republican terrorists for years and cost the economy millions, but there is anger that not one person has been jailed for such an offence in the last 12 years. Why are those terrorists and gangsters immune from prosecution? Does the Prime Minister agree that that is an intolerable situation, and will he intervene to enable the immediate full operation of the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland?

David Cameron: First, no one who commits crimes in Northern Ireland should be immune from prosecution. The hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the PSNI, which, over the past few years, has shown just what an extraordinarily capable police force it is. We should remember the conditions in which it was built. He also makes an important point about the National Crime Agency. It is proving itself in operation after operation, not just here in the United Kingdom but right around the world, and it should be playing a part in Northern Ireland. That is a discussion that we need to have with all the parties in Northern Ireland, and I hope that over time we can get everyone to see the sense of having that important organisation there for Ulster.

Jeremy Lefroy: Christians and others are being murdered for their faith in Nigeria, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan and many other countries. Elsewhere, it is a crime to believe anything other than what the state sanctions. Does my right hon. Friend agree that our United Kingdom stands, above all, for freedom of speech, thought and belief, and that we must do all in our power to protect the persecuted and stand up to the persecutors, whoever they are?

David Cameron: I very much agree with my hon. Friend; he is right to make this such a cause, and to pursue it in the House and outside it. Britain has a proud record of political and religious tolerance—and,
	of course, of freedom of speech. In our dealings with other countries, we should always make it clear that we believe that to be the right approach. There is an appalling amount of persecution of religious minorities around the world, and some now say that Christians are more persecuted than other religions in too many countries, some of which my hon. Friend has named. We should make sure that this key issue of religious tolerance is at the heart of our foreign policy.

Sarah Champion: Two Ofsted reports released today show that local authorities are not equipped to deal with child sexual exploitation. In addition, South Yorkshire police officers are being investigated for failing victims of abuse. I raised all these issues in April. I have raised them with Ministers and at PMQs. What will it take for this Government to help vulnerable people?

David Cameron: First, let me commend the hon. Lady for the work that she has done on this issue. It is important that we learn the lessons from what happened in Rochdale—and, indeed, in the city of Oxford, near to my constituency, and elsewhere. The report released today is important, because the most important lesson that it draws is that we have to get every agency—whether it is the police, social services or schools—working together. That is not happening in enough of our towns and cities, and it needs to. In terms of what this Government are doing, the Home Office is leading this important effort and getting Departments to work together. I am convinced that we will make good progress.

Michael Ellis: On the subject of immigration, Greencore—a large sandwich-making company in my constituency— is already employing 1,100 people. It is now expanding massively, thanks to this Government’s long-term economic plan. However, there were reports last week that it was looking to hire staff from Hungary. Labour wants untrammelled immigration, and that is what it gave this country for 13 years, but is not the message for the people of Northampton—and of Rochester, for that matter—that it is thanks to this Government that there are jobs in this country for the people of Northampton? Would we not be a bacon butty short of a sandwich platter if we forgot that?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The case of Greencore shows that we need not only proper immigration controls within and outside the EU but also welfare reform, so that it is not an option for people to live on welfare when they could work. We also need to implement education reform, as we are doing, so that young people can leave our schools and be able to take on the jobs that are available. It also means sanctioning those people who are on unemployment benefit who will not fill out a CV, will not attend a job interview and will not take a job when it is offered. A proper sanctions regime is actually part of a strong immigration policy.

David Crausby: In December last year, the Prime Minister visited Bolton and promised that there would be 200 extra seats on key morning commuter trains to Manchester by the end of this year. Last week, I met the train operator, who said
	that they did not know how many seats there would be or when they would be available, but that they would certainly not be available by the end of the year. Can the Prime Minister explain why his promise has been broken?

David Cameron: We are making huge investment in rail services in and around Greater Manchester, including in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. On the specific case he raises, I will write to him with the details.

Henry Bellingham: Is the Prime Minister aware that over the past year unemployment in North West Norfolk has fallen by a very welcome 770? Does he agree that one should look behind the statistics and see nearly 800 families who now have a new breadwinner and a brighter future? Is this not yet another vindication of the tough stances he and his Chancellor had to take?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In North West Norfolk the claimant count is down by 50% since the election and the youth claimant count is coming down by 52% in the last year alone. The figures released today show that people who have been in work for a year or more have seen their wages go up by 4%—more than twice the rate of inflation. And of course that is their wages before the tax reductions this Government have made because we have been a careful steward of the nation’s finances. What we would get with Labour is no growth, no jobs and higher taxes.

Clive Efford: The Prime Minister apparently admits that his top-down reorganisation of the national health service and the Act that imposed it were mistakes. My Bill on Friday is an opportunity for him to put right some of those mistakes and repeal the parts of that Act that imposed privatisation on our NHS. The Bill is backed by the British Medical Association,
	the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, Unison, Unite and the GMB—who represent the workers. Never have so many people been united against the Government about an Act that imposed so much on the national health service. Will he back my Bill on Friday and tell people that the national health service is not for sale—not now, not ever?

David Cameron: At least we now know who is paying for the hon. Gentleman’s Bill—that is one thing. Let me make a couple of points to him. Independent providers made up 5% of the NHS under Labour and they now make up just 6% of the NHS. The Government who had the sweetheart deals with the independent sector were the Labour Government, who handed it money in return for contracts. This is what we see in the NHS: 2,500 more nurses; 8,000 more doctors; and more patients being treated. We see an NHS that is succeeding because we made the reforms and we put in the money.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Last but not least, I call Mr Gordon Birtwistle.

Gordon Birtwistle: Thank you, Mr Speaker. In 2009, Burnley was classed as an unemployment blackspot. In 2014, unemployment has fallen to 3.5% and we are no longer a blackspot. May I advise my right hon. Friend that the economic plan of the coalition Government of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats is working in Burnley?

David Cameron: First, I thank my hon. Friend for what he says. May I also commend his leadership on fighting for more apprenticeships, more skills and more training for young people in Burnley? The long-term economic plan is succeeding in Burnley, as it is in the rest of the country.

Points of Order

Brian H Donohoe: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Earlier, during Cabinet Office questions, I asked what I thought was a reasonable question and I did not even get any answer. What can you do as Speaker to make sure that Ministers come to this House and answer questions properly?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of the House and he will know that the responsibility of the Chair is to ensure order. The Chair cannot ordinarily intervene in the content of an answer, for to do so would be to evaluate and it is not for the Chair to evaluate the quality of ministerial responses. If the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied, others may feel that way or not, as the case may be. The Chair is there to be an umpire but not to offer evaluations of ministerial performance. But I always keep a watch on these matters, and the hon. Gentleman will know that when a Minister chose to go completely off piste, totally inappropriately, and to witter on about matters that were nothing to do with him, I made it clear that he must desist. I am sure that, in the name of leadership, his ministerial boss can be relied upon to do the same. We will leave it there for today.

Peter Bone: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister said that he was in favour of bringing forward the money resolution for the European Union (Referendum) Bill. The Prime Minister is also in favour of it, so why is that money resolution not on the Order Paper?

Mr Speaker: As I have become aware over the past nine years, when the hon. Gentleman, who is an extraordinarily indefatigable parliamentarian, wishes to be at his most cheeky, he always opts for a very straight face and an expression of great sincerity. But I know the hon. Gentleman, and I am sometimes wise to his admittedly clever games. I think we will have to leave it there for today.

National Health Service and Care Sector Workers (Credit Union and High Cost Credit)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Gareth Thomas: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to promote membership of a credit union for staff employed by the NHS, other care sector workers, and family members who live in the same household; to facilitate payroll deductions for staff employed by the NHS and other care sector workers who are members of credit unions and to report regularly to Parliament on compliance with these requirements; to place a duty on payday lenders to encourage staff employed by the NHS and other care sector workers to take advice on debt management before acquiring high cost credit; to require the Financial Conduct Authority to report annually on payday lenders’ compliance with this requirement; and for connected purposes.
	The Bill is designed to ensure that NHS and other care staff have access to low-cost loans and other low-cost financial services and, as a result, are not vulnerable to high-interest payday loan companies or at risk of mounting debt costs from using credit cards or bank overdrafts. I should declare at the outset that I am a member of my local credit union, M for Money, and also the excellent Rainbow Saver credit union.
	For those who are in work and on a low income, debt is an ever constant fear. One major unexpected financial problem—perhaps the cost of a funeral or a relationship breakdown—can push people into financial difficulty and put them at risk of using high-cost sources of credit, such as unauthorised bank overdrafts, the charges on which can be crippling financially, or other high-interest credit, such as that offered by payday loan companies or credit card companies.
	According to the debt charity, StepChange, 6 million adults are using credit to see them through to pay day, and 3 million adults are using credit just to keep up to date with existing debt repayments. These debts are overwhelmingly because of financial hardship, and not over-the-top consumption. Indeed, some economists have suggested that this problem debt could be as high as £50 billion in the UK at the moment. It is a huge social and economic issue. Some of those in trouble with debt work for the NHS or other care services. We in this House surely have a responsibility to do what we can to help those looking after our most vulnerable citizens so that they are not going off to work worried about whether they can make ends meet.
	The living wage and higher minimum wages are undoubtedly one part of the answer to the low pay crisis in the UK, but expanding credit unions is another part of the solution too. Sarah is a 44 year-old community nurse with a daughter who is now six years old. In 2010, her husband left, which, quite apart from anything else, left her in real financial difficulty. Up until the separation, Sarah’s income paid the rent, food and nursery fees, while her husband paid for the council tax and fuel bills. When he left, Sarah had to try to find an additional several hundred pounds a month to make ends meet. She found herself getting deeper and deeper into debt and had to face bailiffs coming to her door. She could
	not afford to pay her daughter’s nursery fees and, rather than have her thrown out, she decided to get a payday loan. Soon she found this loan impossible to pay back and subsequently ended up with five loans with different companies, totalling around £6,000. The stress as a result has been considerable. If Sarah had joined a credit union, linked to her employer, the interest on the loans she paid would have been nothing like as high as she had to pay using payday loans.
	I have been given similar examples of nurses and care staff who have got into considerable debt as a result of high-cost credit. To indicate the scale of the problem, the Royal College of Nursing Foundation has reported a 20% increase in applications for hardship grants compared with 2012. In 2012, its average grant was £422; by this year, the figure had risen to £600, which is a 30% increase.
	A credit union is a financial co-operative. Members save money with their credit unions and those deposits are used to make loans at far cheaper rates than the high-cost credit offered by payday loan firms, for example. Credit unions help to keep money in communities and offer cheap financial services. In short, this is about people in one community—in this case a workplace community—looking out for each other and pooling their money so that everyone can get a better service.
	There are already many successful credit unions in the UK, including police credit unions, Plane Saver, the former British Airways credit union, and London Mutual Credit Union, which has more than 15,000 member-owners and which offers, among its crucial financial services, an affordable payday loan service. For a 30-day payday loan, London Mutual typically charges an interest rate of 27% or £19. For the same loan, a commercial payday loan company could charge in excess of 5,000% or £127 —in short, the loan would be £100 more expensive.
	Some credit unions already have a relationship with NHS staff in their areas, but there is not one established credit union serving all NHS and care staff. Little publicity is put out in hospitals and care homes, or by other employers of care staff, to encourage staff to join a credit union. An NHS credit union that was recognised by NHS England would provide a central opportunity for NHS staff to access all the benefits that credit union membership can offer.
	If Ministers cannot be persuaded at this point to support an NHS credit union, perhaps they could offer clear guidance to all NHS employers and other care
	providers that they should offer payroll deduction facilities to help staff who want to join a credit union, and that they should encourage advertising by local credit unions to make staff aware of the benefits of credit union membership.
	Credit unions themselves need more sympathetic support from mainstream banks. While several banks are giving financial support, and some branches are signposting to credit unions those whom they have turned down for help, that is small beer, frankly, and the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority should be demanding more from the banks. Credit unions that want to earn interest on their holdings in the UK’s mainstream banks often get very poor rates compared with social enterprises and charities. Given the huge amounts that the banks have received through quantitative easing, I hope that the PRA will undertake a quick review of this issue to determine whether credit unions could be given a better deal.
	I am grateful to the RCN, Unison, Citizens Advice and the GMB for their interest in the Bill and for supplying me with case studies of real people hit by debt problems in the NHS and the care sector whom they have helped, and for whom a credit union could have made a significant difference. I suspect that debt and low pay are common themes in many of our surgeries, and we undoubtedly need a significant expansion of credit unions. An NHS credit union would represent an especially powerful way of providing debt assistance to those who do such crucial work in our communities for our most vulnerable, so I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.

Mr Speaker: Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?

Gareth Thomas: A particularly talented and handsome group, Mr Speaker, with the exception to that classification being myself.
	Ordered,
	That Mr Gareth Thomas, Stella Creasy, Mr Virendra Sharma, Stephen Pound, John Cryer, Barry Gardiner, Seema Malhotra, Rushanara Ali, Mr Andrew Love, Mr Adrian Bailey, Meg Hillier and Lyn Brown present the Bill.
	Mr Gareth Thomas accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 March 2015 and to be printed (Bill 123).

Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill
	 — 
	[2nd Allocated Day]

Further consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

Clause 144
	 — 
	Amount of financial penalty for underpayment of national minimum wage

Ian Murray: I beg to move amendment 8,page134,line4, at end insert—
	‘(6A) The Secretary of State shall provide an annual report to Parliament on the effectiveness of—
	(a) enforcement of the national minimum wage;
	(b) the level of the financial penalty for underpayment, including but not limited to its impact on compliance; and
	(c) changes in provisions relating to the national minimum wage improving other measures of pay in the labour market.”

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 9,in clause 145, page134,line27, at end insert—
	‘(3A) The Secretary of State shall make regulations containing provisions and measures enabling and facilitating the enforcement by workers of the rights conferred under this section. Those regulations shall be laid before each House of Parliament in draft before being made, subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
	Amendment 10,page134,line36, at end insert—
	‘(1A) Regulations made under section 27B, subsection (1), shall include provisions—
	(a) giving zero hours workers the right to be awarded financial compensation of amounts, and in circumstances, to be determined by the Secretary of State;
	(b) giving employment tribunals powers to enforce their adjudications, including the award of any applicable compensation as referred to in section (1A)(a), or imposition of any applicable penalty, in cases involving zero hours workers; and
	(c) imposing an obligation on an employer to offer a fixed hours contract when a worker has worked regular hours for a continuous period, or series of continuous periods, of employment, to be determined by the Secretary of State.”
	Government amendments 61 to 64.

Ian Murray: It is worth reflecting on the debate yesterday. The Minister for Business and Enterprise, who is not in his place and was not in his place for most of the debate yesterday, said that we would take part 4, which deals with pubs, first yesterday because that was most important. By definition, it seems that the Government do not see the national minimum wage and zero-hours contracts as being important. The programme motion has restricted this debate and that on the important topic of insolvency to just two hours, which shows the Government’s view on these matters.
	We have tabled the amendments in the same spirit as we did in Committee, to try to make the Bill a much better Bill than it was when it started its passage through the House. We hear from our constituents throughout the country concerns about pay and insecurity in the workplace. Part 11 is an opportunity missed by the Government to deal with the problems of national minimum wage enforcement and exploitative zero-hours contracts. They need to show that they are on the side of ordinary people who have had their wages cut by more than £1,600 per year since 2010, but again the Government have missed the opportunity to do so.
	Fifteen years have passed since the introduction of the minimum wage and the Opposition will keeping saying, time and again, that it is one of the Labour Government’s proudest achievements, despite the significant opposition—I was going to say from the Government Benches, but there does not seem to be anybody on the Government Benches, so it would be unfair to level that charge at the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who supported the national minimum wage. This is another example of the pitfalls of writing one’s speech before one sees who turns up to the Chamber. I apologise for aiming my comments at the hon. Lady. The lack of support from her colleagues on the Conservative Benches this afternoon highlights the seriousness with which they take the issue of national minimum wage enforcement and zero-hours contracts. In the run-up to the May election, their constituents will reflect on the fact that they decided not to participate in today’s serious debate on amendments to part 11.
	The introduction of the national minimum wage gave 1 million workers a significant pay rise, and now nearly 2 million workers benefit directly from the minimum wage. For women especially, who are most often susceptible to poor pay, the national minimum wage has had a significant impact for the better on their salaries, their pay and their working lives. It has not affected job retention, despite cries from the Government Benches—although there is no one there today—that it would cost 1 million jobs when it was introduced back in 1998.
	However, the problem is that the minimum wage has become the maximum wage for far too many, and has fallen in real terms since 2010. That is why the Labour party is pledging to increase the national minimum wage to a minimum of £8 per hour and significantly to promote the living wage in partnership with employers. Amendment 8 would require the Secretary of State to provide an annual report to Parliament on three crucial aspects of the national minimum wage—first, its enforcement; secondly, the level of the financial payment for underpayment; and thirdly and crucially, the relationship between the national minimum wage and how it reflects pay in the wider labour market, particularly in interaction with the living wage. I shall deal with each of those aspects.

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend makes some very good points, but does he not think that we restrict ourselves in our brave attempts to get a good standard of living for everyone in this country, and that the national minimum wage should be a national minimum wage plus? The plus should be a guarantee of skills training and much else that supports the minimum wage. I came into politics to provide the
	good life for the people in my constituency and the people of this country. I am sure my hon. Friend would agree.

Ian Murray: I am grateful for the intervention from my hon. Friend. Pay is a only a small element in the workplace, and skills, education and progression are key. As I said, the national minimum wage should be the very bottom, not the top, of people’s aspiration for pay in the workplace. My hon. Friend raises some important point for his constituents and those throughout the country.
	I am delighted that the Minister for Business and Enterprise has now joined us. Without proper enforcement, the regulations will be rendered ineffective. Under this Government, enforcement of the national minimum wage has been poor. That is why we are asking the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the effectiveness of enforcement overall.
	The figures speak for themselves. Reports published earlier this year show that the number of national minimum wage compliance investigations has more than halved since 2010. The response to a parliamentary question tabled earlier this year revealed that the number of investigations had fallen from over 3,500 in 2010 to just under 1,700 by the end of 2013. In addition, the number of cases resulting from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs risk profiling or targeting enforcement action had fallen from 1,500 in 2010 to a mere 431 by the end of 2013.
	On top of that, the naming and shaming policy, which the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, announced four times—I am sure she is expecting me to say this—up until recently had been announced more times than it had been used. To be fair, I appreciate that there have been more instances of naming and shaming recently, but it shows why an annual report is necessary to ensure that the regulations are working, the deterrents are robust and all avenues are being explored to prevent exploitation of the national minimum wage.
	The Opposition have also been clear that local authorities should be given the power to enforce the national minimum wage alongside HMRC. We know that joint working between HMRC and other enforcement agencies, such as local authorities, is sometimes weak, which limits opportunities to maximise resources across different Government bodies. Local authorities, by their nature, have good knowledge of local employers and already conduct significant enforcement activity through their responsibilities for licensing, planning, health and safety and environmental health inspections. In carrying out those duties, councils sometimes come across cases where they suspect national minimum wage violations, but they have no power to investigate them directly and can merely refer them to HMRC’s enforcement helpline.
	Local authorities are perfectly placed to enforce the national minimum wage, given their knowledge on the ground. That move is supported by the report “Settle for Nothing Less: Enhancing National Minimum Wage Compliance and Enforcement”, published last year by the Centre for London, which recommended partially devolving enforcement to local authority level to sit alongside and complement the current central function.
	It would be interesting to hear whether the Minister has considered having local authorities take an active role in national minimum wage enforcement.

Barry Sheerman: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, but will he also mention local enterprise partnerships, which are becoming more mature and powerful at bringing a focus to matters? I have noticed recently that their links to small businesses, in particular, are better than those of some local authorities I know.

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are many agencies dealing directly with businesses, particularly small businesses, that could play a role in national minimum wage enforcement. Poor pay and enforcement should be a job for all of us, whether LEPs, local authorities, the national minimum wage enforcement section, Members of Parliament or whistleblowers. We need a drive towards ensuring that anyone who decides to flout the rules on the national minimum wage knows that there is an organisation out there that can report them and take action against them.
	Amendment 8 would also require the Secretary of State to report on the level of financial penalty. Although an increase in the maximum fine to £20,000 per employee is welcome, we are disappointed that the Government did not follow Labour’s lead in Committee by increasing it to £50,000. By setting the penalty at £50,000, Ministers would send a clear message to rogue businesses that they run a real financial risk by not paying the minimum wage. It would also put the fine on a par with other fines, such as those for fly-tipping.
	As the Minister might be aware, her colleague and party president, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), at the start of the year echoed Labour’s calls for a higher financial penalty, stating:
	“A £50,000 fine for fly-tipping versus a £20,000 fine for exploiting a human being is just ludicrous. It tells you all you need to know how we, as a society, have our priorities wrong.”
	I suggest that it is not society that has its priorities wrong in that regard, but the Government.

Graham Jones: Would these changes have an impact on people working in the informal economy who are not paid the minimum wage?

Ian Murray: Absolutely. We see in the informal economy forced self-employment, bogus self-employment and people not being paid the national minimum wage. It is a big issue in relation to migrant workers and agency workers. It is a huge issue across not only the formal economy, but the informal economy. It is something we must stamp down on, because it undermines people’s wages and the ability to be paid properly. The crucial point is that it is also uncompetitive for business, because the businesses that do the right thing, pay proper wages and abide by all the legislation are undercut by those that do not, and we have to deal with that. These measures are both pro-business and pro-employee.
	Finally, amendment 8 is also crucial to ensuring that the Government consider wider improvements in pay in our labour market—namely, the promotion of the living wage. Under this Government, the number of people paid less than the living wage has risen from 3.4 million to just under 5 million in just four years. That not only
	impacts on low-paid workers, their families and communities, but piles up costs for the country as more people in work have to rely on the social security system, with tax credits topping up their poverty pay.
	Labour councils have led the way in paying their workers a living wage, even within tight budget constraints, and getting more workers in the private sector paid a living wage by using their procurement powers and encouraging the creation of local living wage zones. My local council, City of Edinburgh council, has been paying the living wage for some time now. Other organisations in the private sector are now seeing that paying the living wage is something they should be doing. I must declare an interest as a member of the board of Heart of Midlothian football club, which a few weeks ago took the historic decision to become the first football club in Scotland to pay the living wage to not only all its staff, but all its sub-contractors.

Barry Sheerman: Before my hon. Friend moves on, may I commiserate with him about last night’s football result? On a serious point, I do not know what his local university is, but the university of Huddersfield, which is the biggest employer in my constituency, pays the living wage. If universities up and down the country could lead the way, that would have a powerful effect, especially if they pressed that on their supply chains.

Ian Murray: I appreciate what my hon. Friend says about what happens in his constituency. Public bodies could really take the lead in promoting the living wage. However, his initial comment about last night’s result means that I will have to demote him from being my hon. Friend to being the hon. Gentleman, but I will not hold it against him for too long.
	The Labour party has a proper plan to encourage businesses to pay their employees the living wage. If this Government will not do this, the next Labour Government will launch a national campaign to agree “make work pay” contracts with British businesses, working in partnership with businesses to share in the benefits of the living wage and ensure that people are paid properly for a decent day’s work. The living wage is about bringing employers, employees, campaigners and communities together to build a stronger, fairer economy from the bottom up. The living wage improves the living standards of employees and benefits employers, too. They have found that paying the living wage can make good business sense, generating savings by boosting productivity and increasing staff morale.
	I hope that the Government are minded to support amendment 8. It would be a step towards improving the enforcement of the national minimum wage and then improving pay for all working people. If Ministers do not, it will be up to Labour, the party that created the national minimum wage, to strengthen it for all the low-paid. Amendment 8 is about having a report from the Secretary of State to bring forward some of these issues and highlight them through Parliament so that we can ensure that the national minimum wage is being enforced properly, that the level of financial fines is appropriate and that the Government are doing everything they possibly can to promote additional wages through the living wage.
	Amendments 9 and 10 to clause 145 relate to zero-hours contracts. The explosion in the use of zero-hours contracts is a trend that should concern Members right across the
	House. Although a small number of people find that type of contract suitable, too many are at the mercy of unscrupulous employers who exploit it. For many employees, zero-hours contracts present huge drawbacks in comparison with permanent, regular work. The increasing problem of underemployment and zero-hours contracts is highlighted by the recent reports from HMRC stating that income tax take has been flat over the past year despite the Government predicting a substantial increase. Do the Government not worry that they are creating the kind of economy where unemployment drops but there is no additional income tax take to the Treasury? We must use the opportunity of this Bill to prevent exploitative zero-hours contracts and do something about underemployment. It is not just me who is saying this. The Exchequer Secretary told the Bill Committee’s evidence session that it was the Treasury’s goal to have people on better contracts as it is better for tax receipts. I could not agree more.

Tom Blenkinsop: My hon. Friend is no doubt aware that even the Treasury has admitted in statistical analysis that in the case of someone on a fixed-term contract of 20 hours as opposed to someone on a zero-hours contract with potentially 40 hours—although it will fluctuate over time—the person on the zero-hours contract pays more in national insurance contributions than a similar worker doing the same amount of hours annually. The Treasury estimated that they were about £300 a year worse off than a person on a fixed-term contract doing fewer hours.

Ian Murray: That is the way the tax system works. People are allocated their national insurance and tax thresholds on the basis of when they work on a monthly basis. It can be aggregated over the year only if they are in permanent employment through pay-as-you-earn and the national insurance contributions that are made. In Committee, we had the strange scenario of Government Back Benchers saying that it does not matter what the tax take is because the aggregate would be the same if 100,000 people were working on zero-hours contracts than if the same number of hours were being worked by those in permanent employment. That is primary school economics, because the analysis does not work.
	The Government have to reflect on the fact that while unemployment is falling, and has fallen by a substantial amount over the past 12 months, tax take, including income tax take, is exactly the same as it was the year before. That means that people are not being paid properly for the work that they are doing, that they are under-employed, or that they are in part-time jobs or on zero-hours contracts. So while they may not be an unemployment statistic, they are certainly not contributing to the economy.

Gordon Birtwistle: Does the shadow Minister accept that the tax take is possibly down by a lot because of the increased allowances that people now get before they start paying tax? Surely the fact that people are not paying as much and keeping more of their salary would affect tax take.

Ian Murray: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. If he was in his place earlier—I have no reason to doubt that he was not; I just did not notice when he came
	in—he would have heard me say that HMRC had predicted a significant increase in tax take having already factored in the increase to £10,000 in the taxable allowance. Even taking that into account, it was projecting a significant increase in tax take, yet it has been flat. HMRC had accounted for the change in the personal allowance threshold and for the fact that unemployment is falling. Taking all those things into consideration, it projected that it should be getting substantially higher tax revenues, but it is not. That tells us something about the kind of employment market that this Government want to create.

Gregory Campbell: This Government have made much of increasing the personal allowance, as some of us advocated many years ago. Now we are at the point where the personal allowance level is not offering any tangible benefit to those who are on the national minimum wage and are in part-time employment, because they are at or below the level to which the personal allowance has been raised. A combination of factors is required rather than merely raising the allowance.

Ian Murray: There is a key balance in terms of raising the allowance. The poorest paid are not affected by any increases in the personal allowance, while everyone else benefits. There is a significant decrease in tax take from every taxpayer, but the lowest paid are not included in that.

Graham Jones: One of the pernicious elements of this situation is what we are starting to see in my constituency with agency work, whereby people on zero-hours contracts are being pushed into self-employment when they take hours through an agency. With reference to the tax take, there is some concern that this practice is pushing people into the informal economy and tax is not being paid at the full rate. It is also pernicious in terms of the hours that are offered to people and the insecurity of being in self-employment as opposed even to agency-paid employment.

Ian Murray: Absolutely. We are creeping into the wider problems with the employment market. There is a huge issue with bogus self-employment and a huge issue for the Treasury as regards the informal economy. That is why the shadow Work and Pensions Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), has said that, particularly with regard to the construction sector, we should deem people to be employed unless it can be proven otherwise.

Graham Jones: It is certainly an issue in the construction sector in my constituency, but it is now spreading into other sectors, including catering.

Ian Murray: It is most prevalent in the construction sector, but it affects other low-paid sectors as well. This goes back to the point I made in response to one of my hon. Friend’s previous interventions about good businesses being hit by the playing field not being level because of people undercutting wages and undermining their
	responsibilities to society in terms of paying the appropriate tax that they should be paying on the wages that they are generating.
	So as not to be too uncharitable to the Minister, let me say that we welcome clause 145, which introduces an exclusivity ban into zero-hour contracts. However, as with yesterday’s pubs debate, the Government have been dragged kicking and screaming into doing anything at all about this issue. They have fallen far short of introducing measures that really tackle the exploitative use of these contracts. They are doing nothing to change the practices of companies that base their entire work force management strategy on zero-hours contracts. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said last week, zero-hours contracts have
	“left too many people not knowing how they will make ends meet from one week to the next and unable to plan for the future. And this government won’t do anything to stop it. But we will.”
	Our amendments attempt to build on the fact that the Government have tabled an amendment to the law, albeit a minor one, to stop exclusivity by suggesting that they take that one step further. Amendment 9 would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations so that workers on zero-hours contracts can enforce their rights. It is completely ludicrous that we have been left in a situation where the Government have introduced legislation to ban exclusivity clauses in zero-hour contracts but have not put in any enforcement action so as to be able to remedy the problem. The Minister for Business and Enterprise was pressed repeatedly on this in Committee but could offer only the option of enforcement through the usual employment tribunal channel. Perhaps he should spend less time apologising to the Prime Minister and more time apologising to the millions of workers he is letting down through this clause.

Guy Opperman: Is that the best you can do?

Ian Murray: I haven’t finished yet—just you wait!
	Let me go through why not being able to enforce these rights is a real problem. If, as the Minister suggested, people go through the normal employment tribunal channel, there would be a two-year qualification period for unfair dismissal. They would then have to go through compulsory early conciliation at ACAS. If that failed, they would have to pay a disproportionately high fee to enter the employment tribunal system. If they were found to have been wronged in the workplace, they could receive a compensatory award, but in up to 50% of cases those awards are no longer paid, and the chances of them getting their job back, or any job, would be much diminished.

Brian H Donohoe: When I used to deal with what were then known as industrial tribunals, I understood that someone had to earn a certain wage before they could make any application to a tribunal. In those circumstances, how does someone on a zero-hours contract get into the position of being able to apply?

Ian Murray: That is part of the problem of enforcement, in that we do not know what mechanisms could be used for it. That is why we tabled the amendment to ask the Secretary of State to bring forward proper proposals
	for enforcing these rights. My hon. Friend is right. If an employer has offered someone a zero-hours contract containing an exclusivity clause, I suspect that most will have done so on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. Does that person then have the qualification period needed to enter the employment tribunal system? The answer is clearly no, because they have not worked for two years. Do they have the status of being a worker or an employee? The chances are that the courts would probably deem them not to be in employment at that stage.
	That is why it is important for the Government to come back with proposals on how they will prevent exclusivity clauses.
	Sarah Veale from the Trades Union Congress said in one of the evidence sessions:
	“It is actually quite extraordinary to have a breach of employment rights proposed in a Bill without any kind of penalty—or rather, without any compensation for the individual, because that is largely the way it works in employment law.”––[Official Report, Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Public Bill Committee, 14 October 2014; c. 71, Q162.]
	The Government need to be clear about how individuals can enforce the provision against exclusivity. We cannot just hope that employees who refuse to work exclusively for an employer will not subsequently be discriminated against in the workplace.
	It is very easy to construct a scenario in which that might be the case, and I have already mentioned one to my hon. Friend. In future, if an employer offers a zero-hours contract with an exclusivity clause, the employee might be incredibly knowledgeable about employment rights, and say, “Under section 145 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Public Act, an exclusivity clause is against the law.” However, the employer could turn round, and ask, “Well, what are you going to do about it? You can either take or refuse the job and the contract, but if you do not abide by its terms, we’ll zero you out,” meaning that the employee would not be offered any hours at all. The employer could in effect have exclusivity by threatening the employee with losing their employment altogether.
	That is a very real issue for the economy. I am not talking about businesses or individuals that welcome the use of zero-hours contracts, but mainly about people at the lower end of the employment scale who need to be properly protected. We need to ensure that there is effectively no exclusivity and that people are not zeroed out.
	We need the Government to make a proper proposal about how they will enforce the prevention of a practice that is against the law. If someone driving down the motorway at slightly over the speed limit is caught doing 75 or 77 mph in a 70 mph zone, they receive a ticking off and a fine, but if there were no need to pay the fine or if no fine were levied, where would be the deterrent against breaking the law? I shall be interested to hear the Minister’s response on that point.
	Amendment 10 is about compensation. People often go to great expense to turn up at work: they arrange child care or pay train or bus fares, and that takes time to organise and costs money from their much reduced resources. Having been told that they are needed for work, people sometimes get a text a couple of hours beforehand or on arriving at their workplace saying that they are not needed that day. In a modern workplace, that is completely and utterly unacceptable.
	The CBI has recognised that point and has expressed its support for it. In its March 2014 zero-hours briefing, it stated:
	“a ban on offering short notice for work…is not in the interests of the workers on zero hours contracts, whose interests are best served by always being offered work opportunities with the freedom to decline them. An intervention which creates a simple formula for compensation due to zero hours employees when a shift is cancelled at short notice—two hours’ pay for example—would be better targeted.”
	I think that everyone in the House would agree that there should be some kind of compensation if people are unable to do their shift at short notice because the employer has changed the particular shift pattern.
	The House needs to look seriously at this matter. It is quite clear that the vast majority of employers in this country are respected for looking after their employees as their business’s No. 1 asset. Many businesses that do the right thing spend an inordinate amount of time—I did when I ran my own small business—making sure that all employees get the hours they want and are contracted to do, so that they can gain the salary they are contracted to earn and can pay their rent or mortgage and maintain their standard of living.
	Most reasonable people would say that it was unacceptable for such businesses to be undercut by companies that decide to take on a vast number of workers on zero-hours contracts without offering them regular hours and regular pay. That is why I think that the Government have really missed an opportunity by not going slightly further on zero-hours contracts.
	I now move on to the right to fixed hours. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said last week:
	“We are going to change…the zero-zero economy… Under Labour, if you work regular hours you will have a legal right to a regular contract.”
	Iain Birrell, a partner at Thompsons Solicitors, said in his evidence in Committee:
	“The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development research of last November noted that 83% of staff on zero-hours contracts have been engaged for longer than six months and 65% have been engaged for two years or more. We have a situation, then, in which 65% of staff on zero-hours contracts have been there for two years or more. That is not short-term need”.––[Official Report, Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Public Bill Committee, 14 October 2014; c. 27-28, Q54.]
	We appreciate that there are situations in which employers require workers on a zero-hours basis. However, employers should be able to refuse an employee’s request not to be on a zero-hours contract only if they can demonstrate that their business needs cannot be met by any other form of flexible contract. For example, seasonal work may be a legitimate exemption. In the United Kingdom, someone who makes ice cream might require people on zero-hours contracts to deal with seasonal needs.
	Our amendment 10 would allow a worker to receive a regular hours contract after a continuous period of employment. If an employer has an employee on a zero-hours contract for more than two years, that must mean that the employee has regular hours and regular employment. Employment law should reflect such a situation. We need flexibility in the labour market—in fact, the UK has the third most flexible labour market
	in the OECD—but we must prevent flexibility from being used as an excuse for exploitation, with the business risk being transferred from the employer to the employee.
	In the House yesterday, the Government refused to stand up for small businesses that are going under simply because they are waiting to be paid by large customers, or for pub landlords who are struggling to make a living because of unfair beer ties. They now have a chance to stand up for workers on zero-hours contracts rather than continuing to allow them to be exploited by unscrupulous firms, and for people on low wages by taking proper action rather than letting them down. If the Government choose not to agree to our amendments, it will be up to the next Labour Government after May to stand up for the many and carry out the changes needed to make our employment market both fair and equitable.

Sheila Gilmore: I shall speak to the amendments, but this debate is about zero-hours contracts, and it is interesting that we have even got to the point that there is a Bill addressing this issue. That is a good thing, because as this became an ever bigger issue for many people over the past two or three years, there was a lot of resistance from the Government. Initially, they said, “It isn’t really a problem. There aren’t more zero-hours contracts than ever before. People have the choice to work as they want, and we really don’t need to legislate.” The campaigns and the substantial criticisms have now got us to a place where the Bill includes a provision on zero-hours contracts.
	The problem is that the provision is very narrow. Outlawing exclusivity clauses in zero-hours contracts deals with only one part of a much larger problem. The Government must have thought, “Well, we’ve come under sustained criticism about zero-hours contracts, so we’ll show that we’ve done something. What’s the least we could do? We will ban exclusivity clauses.” Many people realise that that is a minimal response.
	For me, the major factor is the degree of choice that people really have in their workplace. I have heard several Members say on Second Reading and in Committee, where the issue was also debated, “It’s all right. People choose to work in this way. It gives them flexibility as well. It allows them to plan their lives.” Reference was made to people with child care responsibilities, for example. However, it is precisely those people who often find it hardest to cope with being in such a situation. Far from giving them the ability to juggle their various responsibilities, a zero-hours contract may well be the one thing that makes it very difficult to continue in their job while sustaining those responsibilities. People with child care or any other caring responsibilities need to know, day to day and week to week, when they will be working.
	Most people cannot arrange child care at the drop of a hat. When my children were young, I used to say that my parents were the only people in the world whom I could phone at 8 o’clock in the morning and say, “My child’s ill. Could you come, please, now?” Not everyone has parents who can drop everything on that sort of warning. I would not want to do that for anything other than a real emergency—the school’s boiler is bust and there is no school, or a child is ill—because if people have to keep doing it, they will quickly lose the support of their friends and family. To fulfil their caring responsibilities, people have to know what is happening.
	A lot of part-time jobs fit that bill well. It is not a great deal of help if part-time jobs are turned into jobs where people are told, “We’re not really sure which days it will be this week—we’ll let you know.”
	Amendment 10 says that there should be compensation if people are called out to work but are not given work. We must understand that there are costs involved in that. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) mentioned transport. People might also incur child care costs to cover the hours they think they are being given, only to find that they are not there.
	For many of the jobs where I have seen people on zero-hours contracts, there seems to be no compelling reason why there cannot be a much more organised set of working arrangements and why the arrangements have to be quite so flexible for the employer. In most businesses—even retail businesses—where there are ups and downs in the week, and indeed in the day, the patterns are knowable: they do not suddenly differ from one day to the next.
	That is similarly true of caring. The point when I really began to lose patience with zero-hours contracts was when constituents of mine who work as carers found themselves getting texts early in the week telling them which days they would be working. The people they care for are there all the time. The number of people on the books who need care is well known. It should not be beyond the possibilities of management to work out fairly well in advance what the need will be and to allocate the staff accordingly.

Andrew McDonald: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most grotesque manifestations of the way in which such regimes impact on those in the caring profession is that they are paid only for the time when they are in attendance on the person who is receiving the care and do not receive the hourly rate while they are logging in, logging out and travelling to the next appointment? That exposes them to great risk on the roads, because they move quickly between appointments. Does she agree that we really must address that in these provisions?

Sheila Gilmore: I absolutely agree that such methods are used to manage the process, and they might make it look as though the service can be procured more cheaply. I assure anyone who thinks that we in Scotland somehow do not have a problem with social care because some elements of it are supposedly free that that is not the case—we see all the same things happening.
	The insecurity for the worker is huge. I see no reason why that should be the case when the work is there. It might take a bit more juggling, but firms have been trying for years to work out how best to spread the work force over the week.
	In the care industry, there may well be a need for some form of emergency cover, but that is different from regular work. I have heard the argument that it is all very well to say that the people who need to be cared for are known about, but if somebody goes off sick or is on holiday, somebody else is needed so that urgent arrangements can be made. That may well be the case, as it is in teaching. There are long-standing arrangements involving supply teachers. We are back to the issue of choice. If people choose to work in that way and it is limited to situations where cover is needed, clearly it has
	a place. However, the firms that are using such arrangements are not using them just for emergency cover; they are using them for the predictable times, too.
	If people end up doing longish periods of regular hours, they should be offered a proper permanent contract. By that stage, people are tried and tested, by definition. There is no reason for the employer to think that they are not capable of doing the job. In many fields of work, the practice would encourage retention, which is a problem in some of the fields that we are discussing. In a job as important as caring for other people, but not just in that job, it is crucial to deal with issues such as turnover—people not staying the course—because they affect the quality of care. This is not just an issue for the people who are employed in these fields; it is hugely important for those who receive the services—they want certainty about the person who is coming into their home.

Gordon Birtwistle: The hon. Lady is making a passionate speech. I agree that there are a lot of anomalies in the care industry that need to be resolved. However, such contracts have been available for years and nothing has been done about them. Why did the previous Government, who were in office for 13 years, not resolve these problems? I share her passion on this issue, and some of the things that she is saying are right, but it is a bit late to come to this debate and complain about what this Government are doing. Why did the Labour Government not sort it out years ago when they brought the zero-hours contracts in?

Sheila Gilmore: That allegation is made frequently. In the years up to 2007 when I was a local councillor, I did not see these things happening in the care industry. I really did not see huge numbers of zero-hours contracts being used in my area. I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman said was a factual statement.

Brian H Donohoe: In my constituency—I am sure the same is true of my hon. Friend’s constituency—the words “zero-hours contract” did not exist until very recently. In the past two or three years, I have heard more and more of my constituents talk about these contracts. It is because of the policies of this Government that we are in that position, is it not?

Sheila Gilmore: I agree with my hon. Friend.
	The hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) seems to believe that the last Government did nothing on this issue. I do not agree, but even if that were true, it would not be a reason for not dealing with the issue now. On that basis, we would never do anything different or new because a previous Government had not done so. That would be a very strange way of doing politics.

Bill Esterson: My hon. Friend is quite right. This has become a huge problem in the past four and a half years, so much so that people in this country are, on average, £1,600 a year worse off since 2010. That is a direct result of the failures of the Government who are now in power. That is the reality for people up and down the country.

Sheila Gilmore: I thank my hon. Friend for his pertinent intervention.

Tom Blenkinsop: Does my hon. Friend know whether the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle) was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in March 2012, when the Government froze the national minimum wage for under-21s?

Sheila Gilmore: I do not think that there is any need to add to that observation.
	When people work on a regular basis, that has to be accepted and provided for. That is what amendment 10 would do. If somebody genuinely does not want a permanent contract, nobody is saying that it should be forced on them. Amendment 10 says that people should be offered such a contract. If there really are all those people out there who would not want a permanent contract instead—I have to say that I doubt it—they would, of course, be free to turn it down.

Greg Knight: Does the hon. Lady accept that there could be circumstances in which amendment 10 would affect an employer unfairly? For example, there is a requirement that if someone has had so many hours of continuous work in previous weeks, they can insist on the same number of hours in the future. What will that mean for people who work in the entertainment industry and those who work in a job that is seasonal, such as a job at the seaside, where there is a demand for continuous weeks for a certain period, but that comes to an end?

Sheila Gilmore: I cannot see any reason why somebody should not have a seasonal, fixed-term contract for a particular period. We are talking about people working week after week without knowing what work they will be given. That means that they cannot plan for their caring responsibilities and so on, and as they do not know what money is coming in, they find financial planning, such as budgeting for paying their bills, difficult. This is not about somebody working on Brighton pier over the summer season, and I do not think that the situation is comparable with a zero-hours contract. Using such jobs as reasons for continuing a harmful system is not a good idea.

Graham Jones: My hon. Friend is making an important point about the retention of skills and the need to develop people to improve the economy. If there is a dislocation or distance between an employer and an employee, or if their relationship is fragmented, it is hardly conducive to building up people’s skills and the capacity of the economy.

Sheila Gilmore: That is an important point, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South said, one reason why we are not getting in the tax take we should is the huge amount of insecure short-hours employment. That is not helpful to the economy and the community. It is not just the people on those contracts who are affected.

Graham Jones: My hon. Friend is making the important point that Britain’s productivity is poor and is not helped by zero-hours or part-time contracts, which dislocate people from the workplace and from opportunities to acquire better skills.

Sheila Gilmore: And of course that feeds directly into the fact that the Government’s deficit is rising again in this financial year. That is primarily because the tax
	take has not been as expected, which is a serious problem. A lot of people have been told that they have to make great sacrifices so that the Government can close the deficit, but now they are told that nothing is really improving, or at least it is certainly not improving as fast as they were promised.
	It is also disappointing that, when the law on zero-hours contracts is to be changed, a clear enforcement mechanism is not being built into the Bill. A lot of people do not know much about their contract of employment—and that is if they even see one, because many people do not get much chance to see a contract even when they have started a job. People need to get good information about the content of their contract and the rights that they have. We all have people coming to our surgeries for assistance and saying, “I didn’t realise that these were my terms and conditions of employment.” They might only realise when something goes wrong.
	To think that people will understand that a certain clause in their contract is unlawful assumes a degree of understanding and information that a lot of people do not have, especially when they are just glad to get any job at all. They think, “That’s great, I’ve got the job”, but they do not necessarily inquire at that stage about all the problems they might face. It seems strange not to make it easier for people at least to enforce the small change that the Government are offering.

David Rutley: I understand and appreciate the hon. Lady’s argument, which she is making with passion, as she regularly does. Does she not recall that in one of the evidence sessions of the Public Bill Committee, the TUC, which rightly represents workers’ rights, was clear that a good number of its members are on zero-hours contracts by choice and said that it was opposed to their abolition?

Sheila Gilmore: I am sure that some people would like the Opposition to table amendments to abolish zero-hours contracts, but our position has never been to say that they should be abolished totally. The question is whether people have a genuine choice. Just as an employer can say, “I need you on Friday evening, Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning,” the employee should be able to say, “I can’t do Sunday morning. I want Monday or Tuesday instead.” The question is whether there is a genuine two-way relationship, and in a lot of circumstances there clearly is not. That shows that we have to give people protection.

Tom Blenkinsop: This is not just about zero-hours contracts. Under the amendments, an employee would be entitled to see their contract within six months of starting their employment. Often, people are not given any view of their contract, and their agreement to the terms and conditions is implied by the fact that they turn up to work. The amendments are about all contract work, not just zero-hours contracts. An employee should have the right to see their contract, and the Government should enforce that right.

Sheila Gilmore: That is an important comment, and it illustrates again the importance of giving people protection that they do not necessarily have at the moment. In a lot of situations, the employee is perforce in a much weaker position than the employer.
	I fully accept that there can be circumstances in which people can find contracts such as we are discussing a useful way to live their lives, provided that they have equal bargaining power. I remain slightly unclear, however, about why people who want choice would not on the whole be better operating on a self-employed basis. There are a lot of people who have been doing regular work and who everybody knows are employees, but who cannot easily get permanent work. Some employers might find it difficult to rearrange their planning to let them have a permanent arrangement, but things seemed to operate on that basis for many years. I cannot understand why it has suddenly become so difficult for employers to manage.

Andrew McDonald: The fundamental point is about choice, which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) touched on. Does my hon. Friend agree that the power has shifted enormously over the past several years? There has been an explosion in the incidence of zero-hours contracts, and the employee does not have the choice of whether they want one. It is a case of “take it or leave it”, because that is all that is available to them.

Sheila Gilmore: My hon. Friend echoes the point that I was seeking to make. If there were equality of arms and people were negotiating on an equal basis, that would be different from a situation of “take it or leave it, and be grateful for what you’re getting. Arrange your life around all the constraints.”
	In many ways, the Opposition’s amendments are modest. They are not asking for huge changes, but they go beyond the miserly reforms to zero-hours contracts that the Government are offering. I think the Government want to get brownie points by saying that they are now dealing with the problem of zero-hours contracts—the Prime Minister mentioned them today—but the Bill’s provisions simply do not go far enough. I urge the Minister, even at this late stage, to consider supporting the Opposition’s amendments and strengthening the Bill’s provisions so that the Government can say that they are making a proper effort to deal with the problem.

Bill Esterson: In evidence to the Committee, Sarah Veale from the TUC said that there is a significant difference between what she called the higher end of the employment market, which is often where trade unions are organised and staff are well paid, and other areas. She stated:
	“Our worry is with the unscrupulous employers who use these contracts deliberately as a means of cutting wages and having people available, the flexibility being to their advantage and not so much to the advantage of the worker”.
	When talking about provisions in the Bill she said:
	“A lot of work will need to be done with the regulations for this to ensure that there are no easy avoidance tactics used by unscrupulous employers.”
	That is what the TUC said about what the Bill sets out to do, where the gaps are, and how much more work is needed to make it effective for staff who otherwise would be exploited.
	Yesterday we talked about the impact that uncertainty has on people—whether tenants in pubs or small business owners and managers more generally—and on their communities and staff. Today we are considering people
	in employment, and my hon. Friend’s amendments set out how important it is to look after people who otherwise face uncertainty and difficulty as a result of low pay and everything that follows from it.

Andrew McDonald: Does my hon. Friend agree that the impact of people being subjected to zero-hours contracts inhibits their ability to economically engage? It is bad for our communities and economy if people do not have that regularity of income and cannot plan for their future and families.

Bill Esterson: That is exactly my point, and I will be developing it during my speech. The lack of certainty leads to difficulties for a large number of people in our society. Whether caused by zero-hours contracts, part-time employment, general low pay, undercutting, a lack of payment or the minimum wage, bogus self-employment or, indeed, a combination of those factors, it all leads to a situation where the reality of the economic recovery is no recovery at all. I mentioned earlier that on average people are £1,600 a year worse off, and although apparently we have an economic recovery, that is not what is happening for the majority of people and their families in everyday life.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) mentioned the care sector, which is important in the context of the amendments. Before she died earlier this year, my mum was looked after by some wonderful women. Two of them came at weekends to look after her, and they visited four times a day. They told me that their working weekend was, on average, 25 hours long, yet they were paid for only 10 hours. Far from getting the minimum wage, they were being paid less than half that for their work, because they did not get money for their travel time and were paid only for the 15-minute slot when they were with the vulnerable elderly or disabled person they were caring for. In addition, a draconian system was about to be introduced in which they had to phone on arrival and when they left, to ensure that their employer knew they had carried out the visit. Whose phone they were supposed to use was a matter of conjecture, and whether they were supposed to ask the householder or vulnerable person, or use their own mobile—presumably at their own cost—was not made clear. The reality was a low-paid existence for people doing one of the most important jobs that anybody can do, which is look after the most vulnerable people in our society.
	This issue was debated not just in the Bill Committee, but also in the Committee on last year’s Care Bill, on which I also sat. We hear sympathy and warm words, but nothing is changing in this country with the way that workers in the care sector are treated, and they are providing a very cheap form of care for the people who most need it. We have to do better than that, not just for the workers themselves, but for those who rely on them. The amendments are important to start to tackle some of the scourges and problems caused by low pay and payment that is below the national minimum wage.
	The point was made earlier that such measures are important because they lead to far greater commitment. Why would someone carry on working in a sector when they are taking home just over £3 an hour? People will
	inevitably start to look for somewhere else to work where they can earn more money, and we will not keep the best staff and quality of care unless we pay for it properly. As has been said, some Labour councils are doing a good job and have signed up to the ethical care charter promoted by Unison. They are paying not just the minimum wage in the care sector, but a living wage.
	I recently spoke to a director of adult social care who told me that her council has decided to invest half a million pounds in care from a limited and decreasing budget, and in spite of the significant cuts imposed on it—as has happened in many councils, including my own—by the Government. The council realises that unless it takes the drastic step of investing a big sum of money from its budget, quality of care will continue to decline. It has worked out that such investment will lead to an improvement not just in quality of care, but ultimately in efficiency and the financial return that comes from that. People will stay in their jobs, become better at them, and deliver a better standard of care, and that will save money as well as delivering a better service. That has to be the way forward for the care sector, but the situation has not been helped by a lot of what has happened since the Government came to power. Big cuts to social services have made the situation increasingly difficult, and lots of councils would love to go down that route but have not been able to for financial reasons.
	We have heard from those on the Front Benches about Labour’s plans to give responsibility and power to local councils to enforce the national minimum wage, but cuts to HMRC have made it significantly more difficult to enforce existing legislation—I have also seen that in my area where HMRC employs a significant number of staff. The Government’s efforts to introduce a policy of naming and shaming have been pretty poor.

Tom Blenkinsop: Proposed new section 6A(c) in amendment 8 states
	“changes in provisions relating to the national minimum wage improving other measures of pay in the labour market.”
	That obviously means that Labour wants better collective bargaining in workplaces. The best way of ensuring any minimum standard is to have collective bargaining on site as that would reduce the costs of enforcing the national minimum wage at a later stage. Does my hon. Friend agree that one good measure for the care sector and other small SMEs is more collective bargaining in the workplace?

Bill Esterson: That is absolutely right, and as evidence from the TUC that I mentioned earlier made clear, where we have organised workplaces, we have a better system of pay, conditions and support, and as a result better services in sectors such as the care sector.

Tom Blenkinsop: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best way to have collective bargaining on site is to pay subscriptions to a trade union? Traditionally, of course, that has been done through check-off. Does he agree that the Government’s current position on check-off, as an employer of their own employees in the civil service, is a demonstration of their lack of commitment on this issue?

Bill Esterson: My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point and is absolutely right to raise it in the context of this debate. It is extremely relevant to the points I have been raising, as I am sure you will agree, Mr Speaker.

Graham Jones: My hon. Friend referred to the Government policy of name and shame, which I understand has been announced four times. Only 25 firms have been named, despite evidence that as many as 300,000 people in the UK earn less than the national minimum wage.

Bill Esterson: My hon. Friend must have been reading my speech, because I was about to make exactly that point. He has made it for me. The reality of the naming and shaming policy is that it has not worked: it has not delivered an improvement in the enforcement of the national minimum wage. If 300,000 people are being paid less than the national minimum wage, Government Members should be ashamed of that.

Brian H Donohoe: Even if they were paid the minimum wage, working for three hours a week does not, in any shape or form, allow them to live, does it?

Bill Esterson: We should undoubtedly do everything we can to encourage employers to pay a much higher rate. The real level of the national minimum wage has fallen year on year. I agree that we should push employers to pay the living wage, too.

Brian H Donohoe: I am talking not so much about the living wage or the minimum wage as the number of hours people work a week. People cannot pay their keep if they are not working a particular number of hours a week. Regardless of what they are being paid an hour, they need the hours. The introduction of zero-hours contracts has surely been the biggest mistake.

Bill Esterson: My hon. Friend rightly brings me back to zero-hours contracts and the problems and difficulties they create for people. Working a very low number of hours causes enormous hardship and difficulties: the difficulty of working an uncertain number of hours that can go up or down; the difficulty of claiming benefits to cover some of the gaps when going on and off benefits; and the difficulty in trying to navigate a system deliberately put in place by the Government to restrict what people, who are in work mostly, are paid in social security. I am glad he has made that point.
	The use of agency workers, typically from eastern Europe, by companies in this country to undercut local staff is wholly unfair on the migrant workers who work for very low rates of pay and wholly unfair on local staff who are pushed out of the picture by being undercut. That is disastrous both for them and for the workers who are brought in. The knock-on effect is very damaging to the local economy too, because often any money earned, even in such low amounts, is sent back home and not spent locally and circulated around the local economy. The agencies have to be stopped. I am glad that it is Labour policy to take action to reduce the abuse perpetrated by such agencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South made the point very well: good businesses want to pay decent wages, but they are undercut in so many ways that they find it difficult to do
	so when unscrupulous employers exploit the system. Agencies’ use of overseas staff on low rates of pay is just one of the ways in which that happens.
	The Bill introduces a penalty for employers who do not pay the national minimum wage. The problem is that there will be no improvement in enforcement. I mentioned the cuts in the number of staff at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.

Jo Swinson: indicated dissent.

Bill Esterson: The Minister shakes her head. Is she telling me that I am wrong when I say that the people who used to work in this sector for HMRC in my borough and have told me they have lost their jobs are not telling me the truth?

Jo Swinson: I am not telling him that his constituents are not being truthful in relation to their circumstances, but I am saying that the Government have invested more money in the enforcement of the national minimum wage. HMRC has employed more compliance officers in this area of work. I am sure that on behalf of his constituents he would wish to take up his concerns with the Treasury, but national minimum wage enforcement work has received additional investment from the Government.

Bill Esterson: I am glad the Minister has made that point. The reality is that those who used to work for HMRC would be very puzzled to hear it. Many staff working at HMRC, whose numbers have fallen in the past four-and-a-half years, would be puzzled by it, too.
	The lack of improvement in enforcement is a worry, which is why our proposal to give the responsibility and power to local councils is so important. We propose the real deterrent of a £50,000 fine—the Government have not come forward with anything on that scale—and the aspiration of £8 an hour for the national minimum wage. That would move things forward significantly, while at the same time encourage the payment of a living wage.
	All these low pay issues—the people who have to put up with low hours on zero-hours contracts, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) pointed out; the part-time nature of many of the jobs created in recent years, which the Government are so keen to trumpet; the way in which the minimum wage is undercut; the lack of a living wage; and the fact that people are £1,600 a year worse off—show why it is so important for proper action to be taken. The national average for the number of people in work on low pay is one in five. In my constituency, two in five are paid less than a living wage. For my constituents, the issue of low pay is absolutely crucial. They are crying out for an improvement in the way the economy is balanced, so that far more people benefit from economic recovery and we see a reversal in the year-on-year fall in living standards they have suffered under this Government.
	There are very high numbers of people on low pay, which—the point was made in an earlier exchange—has led to low tax receipts. That explains why the apparent improvement in the number of those in employment has not been linked to a reduction in the deficit. The deficit is now going up again, despite the draconian cuts in public spending.

Ian Murray: My hon. Friend makes an incredibly important point. As he will agree, the fact that unemployment is falling but tax take is flat tells us a little about employment in this country. On that basis, it is little wonder that the deficit is rising, not falling.

Bill Esterson: The economic indicators tell the story. Whatever the Government are doing and whatever is happening in the economy, for the majority of people it is not working, but it is certainly hurting. That is the reality for many of my constituents: two in five earn less than the living wage. They are hurting and finding it difficult to make ends meet—to pay their mortgages, their rent, their food bills—and many people in work are going to food banks because they cannot survive otherwise.
	I was talking to a nurse the other week on the picket line outside Ashworth hospital. He felt he had no alternative, because of the dire situation he was in, but to strike for four hours over the 1% pay rise he had been denied by the Government. One per cent.—how mean can you get? When it gets to the end of the month, he has to choose between putting fuel in his car to get to work and buying food. That is how precarious an existence he and many in the country are living on low pay.
	As others have mentioned, more and more people are entering self-employment, and their position is incredibly insecure. As anyone will know who, like me, has run their own small business, there are times when money is not coming in and there is no guarantee of a wage. It is a difficult situation and one facing a growing number of people. For some, it is a choice, but many more are forced into self-employment for a variety of reasons, and it is a very insecure way of life.
	With all these different forms of low pay, I am afraid that the prospects for prosperity or a recovery in living standards will not be good for many people unless we significantly change how our economy operates and the way we deal with issues such as low pay. For that reason, interventions of the kind proposed by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are important; they give support and encouragement by ensuring that the rules are enforced, that people are paid according to the law and that action is taken to improve pay.
	Amendments 8 to 10 are designed to help raise the pay of the lowest paid in the country and those most affected by our low pay economy and to boost the economy in parts of the country, such as my constituency, where there is a big problem. They are designed to protect workers, enforce the law and support businesses that are being undercut and trying to do their bit. The point my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) made about his own experience in business was a great example of what a good employer should be doing—making absolutely sure they pay their staff decently. My granddad used to run a corner shop, and he said, “If you can’t afford to pay people a decent salary, you should not employ anyone.” If that was good enough for him back in the 1940s and ’50s, it should be good enough for us now. That is how good employers operate. Sadly, however, there are unscrupulous people around who will seek to take advantage where they can, so we need to take action to help the lowest-paid in our society. I hope the House will support amendments 8 to 10.

John McDonnell: I apologise for arriving halfway through the Front-Bench spokesman’s introduction and for having to leave soon to chair another meeting.
	If the Government cannot support the amendments, perhaps they could consider the spirit in which they have been tabled. I refer in particular to amendment 8 and the annual report into the effectiveness of enforcement. I have raised this issue in the House before, and while the Minister was on maternity leave I met the Minister who stood in for her to discuss the failure to pay the minimum wage in the shipping industry, particularly on ferries to the Channel Islands. Condor Ferries is still paying £2.65 an hour. Its ships sail around the Channel Islands, so they are close to, and come to, our shores, but we still cannot get around the current legislation to ensure enforcement. An annual report could give us shared knowledge of where the minimum wage is not being paid and how we can work together to overcome the difficulties. Problems continue, and even if the amendment cannot be accepted, at least the Government could provide us with a regular report into the enforcement challenges.
	On amendment 9, in January I helped to launch the fast food campaign, with the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, to lift living standards, pay and the quality of employment within the fast food sector. It covers all fast food joints operating in this country, such as McDonald’s, KFC and Costa, most of which pay the minimum wage and virtually all of which operate zero-hours contracts. I have not met a fast food worker yet who has voluntarily moved to a zero-hours contract. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight), who is not in his place, mentioned end-of-the-pier shows, but the entertainment sector uses fixed-term contracts, rather than just zero-hours contracts, because the latter are so capable of exploitation, victimisation and bullying, as we have found in the fast food sector in particular.
	We have stood outside McDonald’s and we have tried to meet the management of McDonald’s, Costa and others to arrange discussions between the trade union, which is recruiting members in that sector, and management, but they have refused to meet and get involved in those negotiations. Recruitment has gone on and there has been some direct action. The fast food campaign will be demonstrating outside this place on Friday lunchtime to expose what is happening in the sector.
	I welcome the exclusivity clauses in the Bill—they are really helpful—but even with their introduction, as amendment 9 points out, without the capability to enforce them, they will be almost meaningless. At the moment, the cost and other restrictions over who is entitled to go to an employment tribunal mean that many fast food workers and others on zero-hours contracts will never get their day in court. The amendment is not particularly challenging; it would simply require regulations making it open and transparent how people can enforce their rights. At the moment, it is almost inexplicable to people how they can be enforced.
	I think that amendment 10(c), which refers to
	“imposing an obligation on an employer to offer a fixed hours contract when a worker has worked regular hours for a continuous period”,
	would be welcomed within the sector. Over the past year, I have been working on the fast food sector and have found people being employed on the most exploitative
	zero-hours contracts. We heard examples of individuals being phoned up and told to race to work to get the hours. My dad was a Liverpool docker in the 1930s. We are going back to the days when the ganger could select individual workers for the day. It means that although some will be selected, others will not, perhaps because of their trade union involvement.
	One Costa worker who turned up at a public meeting I arranged had been told that he could not have hours the following week because he had not smiled enough that week. We raised that with Costa, but it was denied; the worker and his colleagues confirmed that it was true. That is the sort of exploitation that goes on. Unless we can get to a situation where we can be completely confident that a person has entered into a zero-hours contract completely voluntarily, people will be open to exploitation.
	There is a sliding scale of what people want. Most people want permanent employment; others want to plan their lives over a limited period of time and would want some fixed-contract employment; and others—I think it will be a tiny minority, and not on the present scale—will want zero-hours contracts. The proposed new subsection (1A)(c) in amendment 10 therefore refers to regular employment for a continuous period. The proposed regulations could define that period of time; we could debate the practicality of that. The person should then have the opportunity of having a proper contract rather than a zero-hours contract.
	I believe that the amendments are acceptable and advise everyone to vote for them, but even if they are not acceptable to the Minister, the Government need to take it into account the spirit of them. We should first ensure that we are open and transparent about the effect of the enforcement and share the problems of enforcement, so we know what the future agenda will be. Secondly, we must be completely clear that there are practical rights of enforcement. At the moment, I cannot explain to people how under the legislation as drafted we will be able to enforce their exclusivity. Thirdly, there is the issue of continuous employment, which I think needs to be tackled.
	Again, all that is being suggested is that regulations should be brought forward to deal with these issues. If the Government are unwilling to accept the amendments, they could at least accept that there is an issue and that draft regulations could be brought forward, enabling the possibility of working on a cross-party basis to make some practical arrangements to protect workers from such forms of exploitation. Let me say finally that I would welcome people to join us on the fast-food demonstration at 12 o’clock on Friday.

Jo Swinson: I shall focus most of my remarks on the debate about the national minimum wage and zero-hours contracts, but I would like briefly to set out the effects of Government amendments 61 to 64, relating to the public sector exit payment measures. The measures are designed to enable the proportionate recovery of exit payments when a high-earning individual returns to the same part of the public sector shortly after their exit. The amendments are technical in nature and simply seek to clarify that the obligations can be placed on
	individuals who received exit payments when it is likely that they will swiftly return to the same part of the public sector.

David Rutley: I wanted the Minister to pause for a second on this issue, because it is important to recognise that this Government are taking action on something that has been going on for far too many years. Does she agree that taxpayers across the country who are concerned about these matters will understand that we have taken action so that high earners will not be taking an exit payment and then going off to another job in a few weeks’ time?

Jo Swinson: My hon. Friend makes an important point. This is a basic issue of fairness as well as value for money for the taxpayer. That is why this important measure is part of the Bill. The measure will allow the Government, for instance, to require a high earner who received an exit payment to make arrangements to repay the compensation before they are allowed to take up new employment in the same sub- sector of the public sector. In addition, the amendments clarify that obligations can be placed on the public sector body responsible for the exit payment and the subsequent authority that re-engages the individual as an employee, contractor, or office holder. The amendments are in line with the Government response to the consultation on these measures, which was published on 28 October. I am sure all hon. Members will agree that these amendments are an important clarification, and I look forward to support for them.
	Turning to the more substantive issues, I thank hon. Members for tabling the amendments in this group and for the constructive and positive debate we have had. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was unable to stay, but I thought his contribution was particularly good when he said that if we could not accept the amendments we could respond to their spirit. I very much hope to be able to do so. I shall set out why I do not think the amendments should be accepted as drafted, but I recognise the genuine concern expressed by hon. Members and we share the commitment to tackle the issues. The debate is really about the best way of doing that. It may not be through legislation, but I will explain how the Government intend to tackle the genuine issues raised.
	Amendment 8 is designed to impose reporting requirements on the Government’s approach to national minimum wage compliance and enforcement, as well as the impact on wages more generally. There is already significant transparency through existing reporting arrangements, which I think are sufficient, so amendment 8 is unnecessary. Every autumn, the Government submit evidence to the independent Low Pay Commission, including an assessment of the impact of the national minimum wage on the labour market. That is followed by publication of our assessment of the latest hourly earnings figures and how these are impacted by the statutory wage floor. That evidence, together with views from employers and workers, is considered by the Low Pay Commission before it makes its recommendations to Government. Parliament then debates these findings and the Government’s response in advance of the new rates being introduced each October.
	Amendment 8 is unnecessary because it duplicates the existing reporting requirements. It is not just the final evidence from the Government to the Low Pay Commission that is published, as the interim evidence is published, too. On two occasions every year, there is a written ministerial statement publishing this significant evidence, and it contains the information that is desired in amendment 8.

Ian Murray: The Minister is always incredibly generous in giving way. She has explained how the reports go to the Low Pay Commission and are then reported back to this House, but our amendment asks that to be extended and to be linked to enforcement. It asks the Government to extend the living wage and to look at whether the financial penalties act as an effective deterrent. It thus goes much wider than the Low Pay Commission.

Jo Swinson: The evidence submitted in the reports is pretty comprehensive, so I think it does meet the requirements set out, particularly when combined with the assessment of the latest hourly earnings and the impact of the minimum wage and what it does to living standards and hourly earning. I think that the existing reporting requirements are adequate and that the amendment would bring about a duplication. I welcome the interest in the issue, however, and I welcome the fact that as well as those formal reporting requirements, we have had various debates—sometimes in Westminster Hall, sometimes here in the Chamber—on these issues. Furthermore, these topics are returned to frequently at BIS oral questions, and I expect that to happen tomorrow. It is right that we have these opportunities to discuss these issues because they are important ones.
	Let me deal with some of the specifics that came up in the debate about enforcement of the national minimum wage. In particular, we heard the charge that the number of investigations had gone down and that this was some sign of failure, but I believe the picture is more nuanced than that. Since the national minimum wage was introduced and HMRC has been the enforcement body, that body has continually assessed how it undertakes enforcement activity and how it can be improved. It is true that the number of individual investigations has gone down, but that has been coupled with a much more efficient undertaking of investigations. In particular, HMRC often now has larger and more complex investigations as part of the risk assessment work being undertaken. Sometimes those cases take longer to complete, so there will be fewer overall cases. The number of people covered by each case, however, has been increasing.
	In addition, when someone makes a complaint to HMRC about the national minimum wage, rather than just going in to investigate the particular worker, Joe Bloggs, and their circumstances, HMRC has the power to widen the investigation—not only to ensure that the anonymity of the complainant is preserved, but to recognise that if there are anomalies in one particular worker’s payment, it might well be the case for other workers within the organisation. It has the power to expand the investigation more widely. Although that has reduced the number of cases that have been completed, the number of workers helped and the amount of arrears recovered has increased, so that is a good thing.
	The number of workers helped, for example, has risen between 2009-10 and 2013-14 by more than 17%. The average number of workers per case has nearly
	tripled, and the average amount of arrears per case has increased by 260%. I think that is a good news story on enforcement, particularly concerning the resources available for enforcement, about which the hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) was concerned. Some 144 officers have been involved in HMRC. As a result of the additional resource dedicated by BIS—the budget has increased by £1 million to £9.2 million—a further 26 individuals have just been hired. A team of 170 is now working to ensure that there is compliance with the enforcement of the national minimum wage. It is clear from the figures that that significant increase in resources has already been delivering, and it will continue to deliver.

Bill Esterson: I am pleased that the Minister has given us those figures, but if so many people are involved, why have so few employers been named and shamed under the Government’s policy? The numbers do not seem to stack up.

Jo Swinson: So far 30 employers have been named and shamed, and, as I said in Committee, there will be a further tranche of naming and shaming shortly.
	The previous system was much more permissive in terms of the number of cases in which naming could operate. Until the new rules were introduced, only one employer had been named over a period of many years. We introduced those rules on 1 October 2013, but they did not operate retrospectively, and hence applied only to investigations that began on or after that date. The previous criteria apply to the many current investigations that began before 1 October 2013, and in those cases employers are much less likely to be named. Many other investigations began on or after 1 October 2013 and are still ongoing, so the final stage of the issuing of a notice of underpayment and the consequent ability to name and shame has not been reached.
	As I think has been recognised, the numbers are already increasing, but given that this is a new scheme, it is inevitable that they will start small and become larger as cases work their way through the system.

Iain Wright: The Minister will recall that, in Committee, I raised the issue of umbrella companies, in which people who may be receiving relatively high wages are, for a variety of reasons, subject to spurious deductions that take their earnings below the national minimum wage. Does the Minister think that the HMRC enforcement team could look into that as well?

Jo Swinson: The enforcement team can look into any breach of the national minimum wage, and it can enforce notices of underpayment in the case of spurious deductions. That applies even to deductions that would not be problematic if someone were being paid significantly above the national minimum wage. Some contracts suggest that employees pay for their own uniforms if they are paid significantly more than the national minimum wage; that does not necessarily get employers into trouble with the law, but in some cases it does. Obviously it is necessary to ensure that HMRC’s calculations are right, and that it has all the necessary evidence. Sometimes it takes a little time to ensure that the whole process is followed correctly, which is why cases are still working through the system.

Bill Esterson: I do not remember whether the Minister gave these figures in Committee, but she said a few moments ago that 30 companies had been named and shamed. Does she accept that up to 300,000 staff are affected, and if she does, can she tell us how many of them are employed by those 30 companies?

Jo Swinson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is comparing apples with oranges. According to the most recent estimate, the number of employees who are paid less than the national minimum wage is lower than 300,000—about 236,000, I believe. I stress that that is an estimate. Obviously we do not have data on every single person in the country; such estimates are based on surveys. The figure of 30 companies is not an annual figure; those are cases that have been completed since the new rules came into force.
	I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the vast majority of cases in which the national minimum wage law has been found to have been breached are being named and shamed once the notices of underpayment have been issued. Obviously there is still a job to be done: people must be informed about how they can ensure that their rights are being properly enforced. Let me say yet again that if people fear that they are not being paid the national minimum wage when they should be, they should ring the pay and work rights helpline, which is a free service and totally confidential. The number is 0800 917 2368, and I shall continue to take every opportunity to publicise it, because it is important for people to know that they can receive advice on a confidential basis and then make a complaint if they decide to do so.
	Local authorities have been mentioned. I think it right that HMRC works in partnership with authorities—with some success—to ensure that enforcement happens, but I also think it right for there to be a national enforcement body. The issue of social care has been raised, along with the issue of travel time, which is well documented. Travel time, other than the times involved in travel to and from work at the beginning and end of the day, needs to be included in the national minimum wage. We are well aware of that, and HMRC is enforcing it.
	We know that there are issues in the care sector. That is why targeted enforcement was carried out, and why my colleagues at the Department of Health have been working closely with local authorities to produce guidance to ensure that they contract providers who can provide quality care, along with fair terms and conditions for their work force. Authorities should not be pricing contracts at a level that prevents their basic national minimum wage obligations from being met.
	Amendments 9 and 10 concern zero-hours contracts. We have already discussed the question of whether or not they are sometimes a good thing. It was the former Member of Parliament for Sedgefield, Tony Blair, who said, on 3 October 1995,
	“There will be an end to zero-hours contracts.”
	However, the Labour Government did not deliver that, perhaps because there are people for whom such arrangements work well, as we heard from the TUC during the evidence session in Committee.
	While there are undoubtedly problems with zero-hours contracts, and I do not wish to dismiss them, I think it important to introduce some perspective to the debate. Last year the Chartered Institute of Personnel and
	Development conducted a survey to establish what was happening on the ground, and produced a report. It found that zero-hours contract workers were just as satisfied with their jobs as the average United Kingdom employee, that they were happier with their work-life balance, and that they were less likely to feel that they were being treated unfairly by their organisations.

Iain Wright: Does the Minister think that the significant increase in the number of zero-hours contracts over the last four years is a positive or a negative development—or is it just a sign of a flexible employment market?

Jo Swinson: It certainly is a sign of a flexible employment market, which is good for the UK economy. It ensures that we are able to have a stronger economy and increased prosperity. As for whether a zero-hours contract is a good thing, that depends on individual circumstances. There are plenty of people for whom such contracts work well and plenty of people who are happy with them, but I entirely recognise that there are plenty of people who are not happy, and that there are employers who are not behaving as they should.
	Some of those issues arose in the consultation on exclusivity, which is why we inserted the clauses that we are discussing. Other issues arose from it as well, and we agree that those too need to be addressed. The Opposition tabled amendments 9 and 10, and I welcome their contribution to the debate. We have argued that it is better to ensure that we can work with industry, sector by sector, in producing guidance on what constitutes responsible use of zero-hours contracts, so that employers are clearer about how they should be using them and employees can know what it is reasonable for them to expect.

Ian Murray: If the Minister thinks that there is no problem with zero-hours contracts, can she explain why the tax take from income is flat but unemployment has fallen by 500,000?

Jo Swinson: Various issues affect the tax take and employment, not least the amounts that people are earning, For instance, if people are working for fewer hours, they will pay less income tax, because there will be more people within the tax threshold. That said, we are proud of the fact that we have raised the threshold. I campaigned hard for that in the last Parliament, and I am delighted that we have delivered it.
	The hon. Gentleman accused me of saying that there was no problem with zero-hours contracts. Of course we accept that there is a problem with them. That is why we have produced legislative proposals, which, despite the promises of the former Labour party leader Tony Blair, his party did not manage to do when it was in government.
	Amendment 9 is intended to ensure that zero-hours contract workers have a route to redress to enforce the rights in clause 145. I recognise the serious point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but, as I reassured him in Committee, that is already possible through the order-making power in new section 27B. His amendment is therefore unnecessary.
	We have consulted on the issues of avoidance and routes of redress. Obviously, we do not want a situation where rogue employers could try to get around their
	obligations under the Bill. For the benefit of the House—obviously, not all Members were able to attend the discussion in Committee—that consultation closed on 3 November and the Government are considering the responses to it. More than 70 responses were received. We will then of course publish our response. I reiterate my assurances that, if regulations are required, we will act and we have the power in the Bill to do so under new section 27B.
	Amendment 10 would allow for individuals on zero-hours contracts to be awarded compensation, in as yet undefined circumstances. Again, the order-making power in new section 27B already allows for that. The amendment also seeks to force employers to offer fixed-hours contracts once an individual has worked regular hours for a continuous period, or series of continuous periods. We discussed a similar amendment in Committee. The issue is whether imposing restrictive criteria such as those could discourage some employers from creating jobs. There could certainly be some unintended consequences: at the end of a qualifying period, some people could be let go, or not offered any hours, to try to avoid having to convert a contract to a fixed-hours contract.
	That said, I recognise that amendment 10 is driven by some genuine issues. We recognise that zero-hours contracts have a role in the labour market, but they must be used responsibly. That is why we are committed to working with industry to provide, sector by sector, specific guidance to ensure that employers can have confidence that they are using zero-hours contracts responsibly and that the basic standards and best practice are clear to everyone—employers and employees alike.
	I hope, with those reassurances, that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) will withdraw his amendment and that the House will be happy to support Government amendments 61 to 64.

Ian Murray: I am grateful to the Minister for answering some of the questions but, on amendment 8, it is not clear that the Low Pay Commission has the remit to look at enforcement of the national minimum wage to ensure that that is working properly; to ensure that the financial penalties are a deterrent; and to ensure that there is a greater link with the living wage. Therefore, I would like to test the will of the House on amendment 8.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 233, Noes 301.

Question accordingly negatived.
	More than two hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, 18 November).
	The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Clause 145
	 — 
	Exclusivity Terms Unenforceable in Zero Hours Contracts

Amendment proposed: 10,page134,line36, at end insert—
	‘(1A) Regulations made under section 27B, subsection (1), shall include provisions—
	(a) giving zero hours workers the right to be awarded financial compensation of amounts, and in circumstances, to be determined by the Secretary of State;
	(b) giving employment tribunals powers to enforce their adjudications, including the award of any applicable compensation as referred to in section (1A)(a), or imposition of any applicable penalty, in cases involving zero hours workers; and
	(c) imposing an obligation on an employer to offer a fixed hours contract when a worker has worked regular hours for a continuous period, or series of continuous periods, of employment, to be determined by the Secretary of State.”—(Ian Murray.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 235, Noes 303.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 116
	 — 
	Abolition of requirements to hold meetings: company insolvency

Amendment made: 59,page93,line13, leave out “one creditor makes” and insert
	“the prescribed proportion of the creditors or (as the case may be) of the contributories make”.—(Matthew Hancock.)
	This is to overturn an Opposition amendment made at committee.

Clause 123
	 — 
	Administration: sales to connected persons

Amendment made: 60,page101,line38, leave out from beginning to “House” in line 39 and insert
	“Regulations under this paragraph may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each”.—(Matthew Hancock.)
	This amendment changes the regulation making power inserted by clause 123 from negative to affirmative resolution procedure.

Clause 147
	 — 
	Section 146(1): further provision

Amendments made: 61,page137,line14, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
	“(d) imposing duties, in connection with a qualifying exit payment, on—
	(i) the exit payee,
	(ii) the responsible authority, and
	(iii) the subsequent authority;”.
	This amendment clarifies clause 147 to show that regulations under clause 146 allow for duties in connection with qualifying exit payments to be placed on the exit payee, the authority that made the payment and the authority that re-engaged the exit payee as an employee, contractor or office holder.
	Amendment 62,page137,line17, at end insert—
	“() for preventing the exit payee from becoming an employee or a contractor, or a holder of a public sector office, as mentioned in subsection (1) until the arrangements required by virtue of paragraph (e) have been made;”.
	This amendment adds provision to enable an exit payee to be prevented from being re-engaged by a public sector authority, as an employee, contractor or office holder, until after arrangements for repaying the exit payment have been made.
	Amendment 63,page137,line19, at end insert—
	‘( ) In subsection (3)(d)(iii) the “subsequent authority” means—
	(a) in relation to an exit payee who becomes an employee or a contractor, the public sector authority of which the exit payee becomes an employee or a contractor, or
	(b) in relation to an exit payee who becomes a holder of a public sector office, the authority which is responsible for the appointment.”.
	This amendment is linked to amendment 61. It explains that the “subsequent authority” is the authority that re-engaged the exit payee as an employee, contractor or office holder.
	Amendment 64,page137,line20, leave out “subsection (1)” and insert “this section”.—(Matthew Hancock.)
	This amendment is consequential on amendments 62 and 63. It ensures that subsection (4) of clause 147 applies in relation to all the references to contractors in the clause as amended.

Schedule 3
	 — 
	Register of people with significant control

Amendments made: 65,page149,line40, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”.
	This amendment changes the regulation-making power under section 790B(1)(b) from negative to affirmative resolution procedure.
	Amendment 66,page150, leave out lines 8 to 11.
	This amendment removes section 790C(4), which is deemed unnecessary in light of provision made in relation to joint holders of shares or rights in new paragraph 9A of Schedule 1A (as inserted by amendment 78).
	Amendment 67,page150,line14, leave out from second “they” to “is” in line 16 and insert
	“do not hold any interest in the company except through one or more other legal entities over each of which they have significant control and each of which”.
	This amendment clarifies that an individual is “non-registrable” in relation to the company only if their interest in the company is held solely through one or more relevant legal entities over which they have significant control.
	Amendment 68,page150, leave out lines 21 to 24.
	This amendment removes section 790C(6). Provision made in section 790C(6) is now contained within the new subsection inserted by amendment 70.
	Amendment 69,page150,line42, leave out from “if” to “is” in line 44 and insert
	“it does not hold any interest in the company except through one or more other legal entities over each of which it has significant control and each of which”.
	This amendment clarifies that a relevant legal entity is “non-registrable” in relation to the company only if its interest in the company is held solely through one or more other relevant legal entities over which it has significant control.
	Amendment 70,page151,line3, at end insert—
	‘( ) For the purposes of subsections (5) and (10)—
	(a) whether someone—
	(i) holds an interest in a company, or
	(ii) holds that interest through another legal entity,
	is to be determined in accordance with Part 1A of Schedule 1A;
	(b) whether someone has significant control over that other legal entity, is to be determined in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) and Part 1 of Schedule 1A, reading references in those provisions to the company as references to that other entity.”.
	This amendment provides that sections 790C(2) and (3) and Schedule 1A determine whether someone holds an interest in a company, whether they hold that interest through another legal entity, and whether they have significant control over that entity.
	Amendment 71,page151,line25, after “Regulations” insert
	“under subsection (9)(d) are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
	‘( ) Subject to subsection (14), regulations”.
	This amendment provides that regulations made under section 790C(9)(d) will be subject to the affirmative rather than negative resolution procedure.
	Amendment 72,page168,line38, leave out from “X” to “more” in line 39 and insert “holds, directly or indirectly,”.
	This amendment is consequential on amendment 84.
	Amendment 73,page168,line40, leave out from “Y” to end of line 41.
	This amendment is consequential on amendment 84.
	Amendment 74,page169,line2, leave out “is entitled” and insert “holds the right”.
	This amendment is consequential on amendment 84.
	Amendment 75,page169,line4, leave out from “Y” to end of line 6.
	This amendment is consequential on amendment 84.
	Amendment 76,page169, leave out lines 19 to 30.
	This amendment removes paragraphs 7 and 8 from Part 1 of Schedule 1A. Provision made in these paragraphs is now contained within new paragraphs 9A and 9B of Part 2 of Schedule 1A inserted by amendment 78.
	Amendment 77,page169,line30, at end insert—

Part 1A
	 — 
	Holding an interest in a company etc

Introduction
	8A This Part of this Schedule specifies the circumstances in which, for the purposes of section 790C(5) or (10)—
	(a) a person (“V”) is to be regarded as holding an interest in a company (“company W”);
	(b) an interest held by V in company W is to be regarded as held through a legal entity.
	Holding an interest
	8B (1) V holds an interest in company W if—
	(a) V holds shares in company W, directly or indirectly,
	(b) V holds, directly or indirectly, voting rights in company W,
	(c) V holds, directly or indirectly, the right to appoint or remove any member of the board of directors of company W,
	(d) V has the right to exercise, or actually exercises, significant influence or control over company W, or
	(e) sub-paragraph (2) is satisfied.
	(2) This sub-paragraph is satisfied where—
	(a) the trustees of a trust or the members of a firm that, under the law by which it is governed, is not a legal person hold an interest in company W in a way mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(a) to (d), and
	(b) V has the right to exercise, or actually exercises, significant influence or control over the activities of that trust or firm.
	Interests held through a legal entity
	8C (1) This paragraph applies where V—
	(a) holds an interest in company W by virtue of indirectly holding shares or a right, and
	(b) does so by virtue of having a majority stake (see paragraph 15) in—
	(i) a legal entity (“L”) which holds the shares or right directly, or
	(ii) a legal entity that is part of a chain of legal entities such as is described in paragraph 15(1)(b) or (2)(b) that includes L.
	(2) Where this paragraph applies, V holds the interest in company W—
	(a) through L, and
	(b) through each other legal entity in the chain mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b)(ii).”.
	This amendment inserts new Part 1A to Schedule 1A. Part 1A specifies what is meant by holding an interest in a company, including through a relevant legal entity, for the purposes of determining under section 790C whether a person is or is not “registrable”.
	Amendment 78,page169,line34, at end insert—
	“Joint interests
	9A If two or more persons each hold a share or right jointly, each of them is treated for the purposes of this Schedule as holding that share or right.
	Joint arrangements
	9B (1) If shares or rights held by a person and shares or rights held by another person are the subject of a joint arrangement between those persons, each of them is treated for the purposes of this Schedule as holding the combined shares or rights of both of them.
	(2) A “joint arrangement” is an arrangement between the holders of shares (or rights) that they will exercise all or substantially all the rights conferred by their respective shares (or rights) jointly in a way that is pre-determined by the arrangement.
	(3) “Arrangement” has the meaning given by paragraph 17.”.
	This amendment inserts provisions in relation to joint interests and joint arrangements to Part 2 of Schedule 1A for the purpose of interpreting that Schedule.
	Amendment 79,page170,line1, after “capital” insert
	“—
	(a) a reference to holding shares in that entity is to holding a right to share in the capital or, as the case may be, profits of that entity;
	(b) ”.
	This amendment clarifies what is meant by a reference to holding shares in a legal entity that does not have a share capital.
	Amendment 80,page170,line11, after “rights” insert
	“—
	(a) a reference to exercising voting rights in the entity is to be read as a reference to exercising rights in relation to the entity that are equivalent to those of a person entitled to exercise voting rights in a company;
	(b) ”.
	This amendment clarifies what is meant by a reference to exercising voting rights in a legal entity that does not have general meetings where matters are decided by the exercise of voting rights.
	Amendment 81,page170,line35, leave out from “person” to “if” in line 36 and insert “holds a right “indirectly” ”.
	This amendment is consequential on amendment 84.
	Amendment 82,page170,line38, leave out from “(a)” to “that” and insert “holds”.
	This amendment is consequential on amendment 84.
	Amendment 83,page170,line43, leave out from “which” to “that” in line 44 and insert “holds”.
	This amendment is consequential on amendment 84.
	Amendment 84,page171,line17, leave out from beginning to end of line 19 and insert—
	“Shares held by nominees
	15A A share held by a person as nominee for another is to be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as held by the other (and not by the nominee).
	Rights treated as held by person who controls their exercise
	16 (1) Where a person controls a right, the right is to be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as held by that person (and not by the person who in fact holds the right, unless that person also controls it).
	(2) A person “controls” a right if, by virtue of any arrangement between that person and others, the right is”.
	This amendment provides that where a share is held by a nominee on behalf of a person, the share is treated as held by that person. Where a right held by a person is controlled by another person, the right is treated as held by that other person.
	Amendment 85,page172, leave out lines 30 to 41.
	This amendment removes paragraphs 21 and 22 of Schedule 1A. Provision made in paragraphs 21 and 22 is now dealt with in the new paragraphs inserted by amendments 78 and 84.
	Amendment 86,page173, leave out line 10.
	This amendment is consequential on amendment 84.
	Amendment 87,page174,line25, leave out “is entitled to exercise” and insert “holds”.
	This amendment is consequential on amendment 84.
	Amendment 88,page174,line26, leave out “is entitled to appoint or remove a majority” and insert
	“holds the right to appoint or remove any member”.
	This amendment is consequential on amendment 77.
	Amendment 89,page174,line29, leave out “entitlement” and insert “right”.
	This amendment is consequential on amendment 84.
	Amendment 90,page174,line31, leave out from “is” to “and” in line 33 and insert
	“by virtue of paragraph 15A or 16 of that Schedule, treated for the purposes of that Schedule as held by a person other than the person who in fact holds the interest, both the holder”. —(Matthew Hancock.)
	This amendment is consequential on amendment 84.
	Third Reading
	Queen’s and Prince of Wales’s consent signified.

Matthew Hancock: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I would like to start by thanking all hon. Members who have contributed to the scrutiny of the Bill, both in Committee and on Report. There has been considerable consensus and agreement on many of the measures, and I welcome the support from Members on both sides of the House for our doing everything we can to improve the environment for small businesses. It is a clear goal of this Government to make Britain the best place in the world to start and grow a business, and this Bill, the first of its kind, will make a significant contribution to that. Small businesses make a huge contribution to the UK, accounting for around half of UK jobs and a third of private sector turnover, and they are vital to our prosperity and to the UK economy.
	The Bill strengthens and improves the way in which regulation is dealt with in government. We have introduced the one-in, one-out and the one-in, two-out approaches to regulatory management, and these have delivered over £1.5 billion of savings per year to businesses since January 2011. I am delighted that there has been support for enshrining the principles of transparent regulatory management in legislation through the regulatory reform measures.
	The Bill makes significant inroads into improving the business environment for small businesses even further while also, crucially, providing new protections for the employees who lie at the heart of our recovery. For the
	first time, we have addressed the abuses of zero-hours contracts. Despite Labour’s promises going back 20 years, no action was taken. Now, however, we have passed legislation to address exclusivity in zero-hours contracts.

Ian Murray: Will the Minister tell the House how he can enforce the provisions on exclusivity clauses?

Matthew Hancock: Thanks to the Bill, exclusivity clauses will no longer be valid; they will be null and void. The Opposition promised to do this in opposition last time around, they did nothing about it for 13 years and now they witter on about impractical solutions, whereas this Government are interested in making changes that will improve the labour market. I am proud that we are doing this at the same time as increasing the number of jobs in this economy to record levels.

Andrew McDonald: The Minister has not said how he is going to enforce this. How will it be enforced—will he answer, please?

Matthew Hancock: As I said, not only will any exclusivity clause be null and void, but we are consulting on those powers. If the hon. Gentleman actually wanted to get into the detail of trying to sort this out, he would know that that consultation was happening—perhaps he will even respond to it. One thing that happened during the passage of this Bill was that it became clear that the Labour party had not been engaged in any of the consultations about any of the improvements we are making. Instead of making partisan points, we are making it easier to do business and to employ people, and we are strengthening people’s rights where their employment contracts are abused, but doing so in a way that can allow small businesses to continue to grow, employ and take people on.

Julie Hilling: The Minister is trumpeting getting rid of the exclusivity clauses as being a marvellous thing, but how does it help workers if, instead of having one zero-hours contract with one employer, they end up with several zero-hours contracts with several employers? That does not get to the heart of the problem, which is the abuse of workers on zero-hours contracts.

Matthew Hancock: The heart of the problem is that for 13 years the Labour party, having promised to do something about this issue, did absolutely nothing about it. Tackling this issue is about making sure we remove the abusive practices while also supporting the flexible labour market to ensure that people can get jobs altogether. Our reforms demonstrate that we can both deal with the abusive practices—for example, by tackling people who do not pay the national minimum wage and tackling the abuse of zero-hours contracts—and have a jobs recovery. The best way to help people is to make sure they have access to a job.
	I am glad that on Second Reading the Bill had all-party support and that, throughout, we have had more than enough time to consider the issues—indeed, we have had time to spare. The fairness and transparency agenda that is also a crucial part of the Bill is all about making sure that businesses that do the right thing are not undercut by those that do not.

Bob Neill: I recognise the importance of the initiatives set out in part 8. Does the Minister recognise that, consistent with his observation about making sure there is proportionality, before any regulations relating to part 8 are drawn up, careful consultation should take place with those directly affected in the financial sectors and, in particular, great attention should be given to the security risks that might arise if a register is held online?

Matthew Hancock: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Improving transparency internationally is important in ensuring that we tackle crime and have a system that people trust, but we have to introduce things in a way that supports legitimate business, does not put undue burdens on business and is secure in terms of the data held. The points he makes are important.
	We have increased parliamentary scrutiny of the business impact target—the target for regulatory reduction. We heard in Committee that the Labour party would make no commitment to tackle the burden of regulation on business, whereas we have our one-in, two-out rule. We are ensuring that the targets and the associated metrics will have to be laid before Parliament when they are set or amended. We have also changed the Secretary of State’s powers on administration sales to connected parties and certain elements of the register of people with significant control, so that they are now subject to the affirmative resolution, not the negative one.
	We have also introduced new topics during the Bill’s passage, making it easier for small businesses to access finance. Research suggests that 71% of small businesses approach only one finance provider. Our change will ensure that those who want to do so, having been rejected by their bank, can have their details passed on, to encourage greater competition among finance providers. One problem was that there were few different finance providers—the number of banks had shrunk over the past couple of decades—but now, thankfully, the competition is very successfully coming back into the market for finance.

Jim Cunningham: I am sure the Minister has covered this before, but it is worth saying again that one big problem for small businesses comes when the larger companies do not pay up on time and they then get a cash-flow problem.

Matthew Hancock: The hon. Gentleman is dead right about that and he anticipates my next paragraph. We have also strengthened measures to support prompt payment, acting both to increase transparency, so that when companies do not pay on time that is made clear, and to strengthen public sector prompt payment so that the sector can lead by example. I am grateful for that intervention.
	We have also included a new clause on home businesses to remove the incentive, dating from a very old Act of Parliament, for landlords to prohibit tenants from operating a business from home. Home businesses are the hotbed of enterprise; 70% of new businesses are started at home, and we want to make it easier for that to happen. We have also strengthened support for the early years pupil premium to help three and four-year-olds from less well off backgrounds by amending the Bill to enable Departments to disclose to local authorities information on eligibility, while ensuring that unlawful disclosure of such data continues to be an offence.
	Questions were raised in Committee about the scrutiny of complaints handling procedures in the financial services sector, so we have introduced a measure to require the independent complaints commissioners to produce an annual assessment of complaints handling. That will ensure that processes are fair and accessible to all complainants, including small business.
	Finally, on pubs, the Government have listened and responded to the concerns about the burdens the measures would place on family brewers and removed these smaller companies from the scope of the code during the passage of the Bill. Yesterday, we saw the House express its will, and we will reflect on that vote during the Bill’s further passage.

Toby Perkins: Is the Minister not being a little disingenuous to suggest that the Government have listened to what the Committee said, because they voted against the Committee on the family brewers issue and indeed yesterday they tabled another amendment to try to defeat the will of the House on that matter? Is not the truth that the Government have realised this is a battle they cannot win and they have given in?

Matthew Hancock: No. As the hon. Gentleman knows, no amendments were moved yesterday on family brewers. We will reflect on the vote on the larger pubcos and the mandatory free-of-tie option as the Bill continues its passage in the other place.

Bill Esterson: The Minister says he is going to reflect on the vote, with the will of the House being the market rent only option. I know he has spent his time apologising to the Prime Minister for losing that vote, but perhaps I may press him on the point. This will be taken to the House of Lords. Is he going to try to overturn the will of the elected House or not?

Matthew Hancock: As I have said, the House has made its position clear and we will reflect on that vote ahead of consideration in the other place. That is a very clear exposition of the position.
	On the question of how we can ensure that Britain can compete in the future, that we can support businesses and the jobs and prosperity that they bring, that this country is the best place in the world in which to start and grow a business, and that we make things as easy as possible for all those who have the spark of an idea and want to turn it into commercial reality, I say that there have been few Governments in history that have done more for small businesses than this one. For the first time in modern history, we are on track to reduce the burden of domestic regulation—something that was never achieved by the Labour party. With these measures in the Bill adding to a multitude of others that have already been taken, we are doing all we can to support the British people and to ensure that we have a long-term economic plan that can secure for you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and for families across the country, the prosperity that we all want to see.

Toby Perkins: I echo the Minister’s thanks to everyone who has contributed to the surprising and interesting passage of this Bill. I thank my shadow ministerial colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) and for Hartlepool (Mr Wright),
	and all the other members on our team who have contributed to the valuable scrutiny of some very important measures. The Bill posed a number of questions and challenges for the Government, and I look forward to investigating and exploring the extent to which they have been delivered.
	I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), for her work—the Minister did not get the opportunity to thank her in his contribution—and all the other Members who contributed to an interesting Committee stage.
	When we first saw this Bill, it was our strong belief that it was jammed full of missed opportunities. It confronted many of the big questions that people in our constituencies raise. I am talking here about late payments, zero-hours contracts, minimum wage, insolvency and how our insolvency regimes works, and how we can provide more support to parents in the form of child care. It also addressed this key question of the relationship between pub companies and their tenants, and the Government’s role in all of that.
	On Second Reading, I said that this House had the chance to pass a small business Bill that did not miss out on many of those key opportunities, and I must say now that we did rather better than I expected, especially on the subject of pub companies. We can be satisfied that, as a Committee, we made progress in some of those areas. What we need is not sound bites on our long-term economic plan, but a Government who deliver on that plan and support a skills-based economy in which people go to work knowing that they can afford to pay their bills at the end of the working week. We want real investment in high quality apprenticeships and good relationships between businesses in which we can all have confidence. I am talking there about the thorny subject of late payments and the relationship between pub companies and their tenants. This Bill leaves this House having missed out on a whole score of opportunities, but it is none the less stronger than it was at the outset, so the Committee and indeed the whole House must take great credit for that.
	Labour has demonstrated real leadership in supporting small businesses through the course of this Bill. The fact that the Government agreed with the spirit behind many of our amendments, but not the specific wording, suggests that we were indeed on the right lines. I am glad that we managed to secure some concessions from the Government in a few of those areas, and the Bill is much the stronger for it.

Jim Cunningham: I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that the test of this Bill will be in its implementation. We want to see what happens with things such as low pay and zero-hours contracts. We hear fine words in the House, but it is what happens out there that is important, because there is a great deal of insecurity at the moment.

Toby Perkins: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is absolutely right. Let me take this opportunity to say that he is a fine MP, and I know that because he is my father’s MP. My father speaks very warmly about his contribution. The last point my hon. Friend made was typical of him. He is speaking up for a city, with a varied post-industrial economy and a proud manufacturing history. Its university is one of the most important in the country, and a massive employer in his constituency.

Jim Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for paying such a compliment to Coventry. In the last recession, during the Thatcher years, we lost thousands of jobs in the motor car trade. We learned a lesson from that, because we diversified. More importantly though, we still have the development centre for Jaguar Land Rover and the university technical college, which is due to take off any day now.

Toby Perkins: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to trumpet the manufacturing excellence of his city and Jaguar Land Rover. We are delighted that Mike Wright from JLR is producing a review for the Labour party, as he is a much respected figure. For our economy to work in the long term, it is incredibly important that we have a real skill base. I am glad that my hon. Friend raised that point. I am also pleased that he talked about the lessons that we learned from the industrial vandalism of the 1970s which that had appalling consequences for his city. None of us will forget the song “Ghost Town” that was written by the Coventry band The Specials. It reflected precisely that sense of desolation when industries disappeared. He is right to say that the city has learned lessons from that. To repay the debt, we must ensure that we never make the same mistakes again, which is why Labour is coming forward with an economic strategy that is based on skill and on competing with high-wage and successful world economies. We are not even attempting to be part of this race to the bottom or to scrap with the developing world on who can be the cheapest employer. What we are saying is that we need to look again at the way that our economy works.

Jim Cunningham: Interestingly, when Coventry city council joined with the university of Warwick to set up a business park, we were heavily criticised by the then Conservative Government. Two years down the road, it is clear that it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. Creating business parks was the way to go, and we did it in Coventry.

Toby Perkins: I could not agree more. That is an example of how Government and industry can work together to build the high-skill, high-wage economy that we want, which is in stark contrast to the kind of economy that has developed under this Government. My parents worked at Warwick university, and if we compare the size of that university in the ’70s, when I first came to the area, with its size today, we see the real difference that investment can make.

Gordon Birtwistle: Surely the hon. Gentleman agrees that the advances in apprenticeships and high-tech skills that the coalition Government are delivering represent progress from the previous 15 or 20 years. The number of apprentices is approaching 2 million, and many companies in the aerospace, automotive and oil sectors have jumped on the fact that we need such skills to be delivered. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that progress has been made, or is he still thinking back to the days of Thatcher 30 years ago?

Toby Perkins: I accept that some progress has been made. There was a real rebirth in apprenticeships over the second half of the previous Government’s time in office and the current Government have said a lot about apprenticeships. However, I was disappointed that they did not support our amendments on apprenticeships,
	and people will feel short-changed because the Bill represented a real opportunity for the Government to take substantive steps on apprenticeships.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that many employers recognise the importance and value of apprenticeships. However, the number of under-19 apprenticeships is falling, and there has been a big increase in the rebadging of programmes that were previously known as back-to-work schemes as apprenticeships. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not mind me saying that he was the oldest new Member of the 2010 generation. Older workers are incredibly important, as is demonstrated by the vigour with which he performs his tasks, and no one would describe him as an apprentice, but many older workers with a huge amount to offer our economy are being classified as though they are apprentices.

Jonathan Edwards: The hon. Gentleman talked about the need to tackle the problem of low-wage jobs. Today’s report by the Office for National Statistics indicates that workers in Wales earn an average of £473.40 a week, whereas the UK average is £518 and the London average is £660.50. How would a future Labour Government tackle that wage inequality?

Toby Perkins: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am glad that Members can cite important statistics by the ONS in the Chamber, given the importance of our having statistical accuracy which we have heard about.
	On the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, we have a commitment on the living wage for businesses involved in major Government contracts, as well as to increasing the minimum wage to £8 by 2020. We also have a broader commitment to a skills-based economy in which we can create jobs that deliver wages that people can live on, as ultimately that is what will make the biggest difference to increasing wages, rather than the use of Government regulation as a silver bullet.
	The small business community took pleasure from the arrival of a small business Bill. We give the Government credit for bringing forward a Bill with the words “Small Business” in its title, as such businesses have been overlooked in recent years. However, sadly, the opportunity to include in the Bill many of the measures that we proposed to benefit small business has passed us by. Provision on late payments is a classic example, as the Government had a real opportunity to support a late payment plan that would ensure that the onus to pursue payment—eventually through the courts, but initially through invoicing—was removed from small businesses that are owed money. Despite the sensible evidence that the Committee heard from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), among others, about why small businesses do not pursue their big business customers, the Government did not support our measure, which was backed by the Forum of Private Business and the Federation of Small Businesses, and would have been a significant step forward. However, on a more positive note, the Government talked yesterday about how they could strengthen the prompt payment code and ensure that businesses with payment terms of longer than 60 days would not be considered to be prompt payers.

Bill Esterson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Eleanor Laing: Order. Before the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) considers giving way, I must point out to him that this is an extremely short debate, that he has had plenty of time to speak over the past two days, that many Members in the Chamber have not spoken on the Bill at all in those two days, and that he has spoken for longer than the Minister. However, I leave it up to the hon. Gentleman; he has the floor.

Toby Perkins: Of course I take your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I shall attempt to crack on but, as we said yesterday, the programme order gives us a pathetically short period of time to debate the Bill.

Matthew Hancock: rose—

Toby Perkins: I shall give way in a moment.
	Indeed, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) tabled amendments, but he did not even have the opportunity—

Matthew Hancock: rose—

Toby Perkins: I can see you, but I am saying something at the moment. The hon. Member for Huntingdon wished to move an amendment—

Eleanor Laing: Order. This is not the moment for discussing the programme order. We have very little time left in which to consider this important Bill, and the hon. Gentleman must stick to his Third Reading points—briefly.

Toby Perkins: I think that that rather makes my point, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	At the start of the Bill’s passage, our objectives were clear—[Interruption.] The Minister for Business and Enterprise is getting angry now. I appreciate that he has had a pretty difficult couple of days, but he should have been apologising last night not to the Prime Minister, but to all the publicans he was trying to get in the way of and all the people he has let down. He turned up late to the start of the Bill’s proceedings in Committee and its passage has been a shambles. If this is his Churchillian way of taking measures through Parliament, he should have spent a little more time at the knee of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as he might have learned a little more.

Matthew Hancock: You are an embarrassment.

Toby Perkins: Frankly, the right hon. Gentleman is the one who ought to be a bit embarrassed.
	Let me continue by talking about pub companies. The right hon. Gentleman was not in the Chamber for much of yesterday’s debate, but had he been, he would have realised why we were able to convince people that the Government’s proposals on pub companies did not go nearly far enough and that real change was needed. It is a matter of tremendous pride that we were able to convince hon. Members on both sides of the House to express their will in support of the market rent only option. The Minister’s attitude and the approach that he is taking demonstrate how the Government have lost all the arguments on that. I am glad to see that they are not going to try to bring the family brewers back into the scope of the measure, even though he is wrong to
	say that no amendment was withdrawn yesterday. A series of amendments were withdrawn yesterday that would have attempted to bring the family brewers back in. I hope he reflects carefully before attempting to change in another place something that was the will of this House.

Tom Blenkinsop: On a slightly different note, I wanted to raise one factor that was highlighted to me. There has not been one speech or one single contribution from a Scottish nationalist during the entire—

Eleanor Laing: Order. That is not a point for Third Reading. I asked the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) to be brief because there are people who have had no chance to speak in this debate. I trust that what the Chair says will be listened to.

Toby Perkins: My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) was making an important point, but I accept your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	We have come to the end of the Bill. We look forward to it coming back here. It has been strengthened in respect of prompt payment and includes the market rent only option and a pubs code that the industry has demanded for many years, but we have not seen serious action on zero hours. We have seen a Government at the fag-end of their time in power doing the least they could on the question of zero hours, which shows their lack of commitment to dealing with the issue. None the less, the Bill leaves Report stronger than it arrived, and the House should be very proud of that.

Jonathan Djanogly: I declare my interests as they appear in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
	On Second Reading I raised my concerns about the provisions in clause 75 and part 7, and related issues in part 8 and schedule 3, to set up a register of people with significant control—in effect, a register of beneficial ownership. I questioned whether they would have benefit in terms of countering illegal activity or investigating tax evasion, even if this was at the triple cost of loss of privacy, increasing the regulatory burden on companies and threatening investment in British companies. Since that time, my concerns that we are doing the wrong thing have been increased, not reduced.
	I am sorry not to have been given time to speak to my tabled amendments. It is of concern also that the issue of privacy was not raised by any amendments tabled in Committee, with the honourable exception of the wise remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) in the stand part debate. He raised the key question: how many of the 22.5 million English companies is it actually suspected may be subject to some wrongdoing that could be tackled by these proposals? This question has yet to be answered by the Minister or anyone else. I respectfully suggest that this is not the proper process for encouraging investment or portraying this Government as business-friendly.
	The Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), replied in Committee that the impact assessments undertaken indicated that
	“our proposed measures are lawful, necessary and proportionate”––[Official Report, Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Public Bill Committee, 30 October 2014; c. 423.]
	So I went through the impact assessment, and I cannot find such justification at all. In fact, it is by some way the weakest case I have ever read in an impact assessment. For instance, the impact assessment makes it clear that there exists little or no data or academic literature quantifying the proposition that a reduction in crime will follow as a result of a register of people with significant control.
	My prediction is that these part 7, clause 75 and schedule 3 provisions will not work. In many instances there will be confusion as to who or what is a shareholder with significant control—for instance, in terms of family holdings, let alone complicated trusts, with expensive advice then required. The proposed data collection method is based on self-reporting, with no verification mechanism, which could make it easy, especially for non-resident shareholders, to misreport or simply to give the shares to someone else to hold.
	For the purpose of this debate, let us take as our starting point the G8 agreement that companies should know who their shareholders are. I repeat: companies—not commercial competitors, NGOs, direct marketers, spammers or providers of financial services looking for clients, let alone criminals, fraudsters and all the others who could use or misuse information provided under these provisions.
	Now we have the further G20 communiqué proposing a crackdown on secret shell companies. However, this was not accompanied by a call for share registers to be made public. So how did we get from the narrow G8 and G20 proposals to what we have in the Bill?

Bob Neill: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case and I very much agree with him. Is it not significant that on the back of the G7 discussions these proposals might be extended to the British overseas territories and Crown dependencies, many of which are already well in advance of most other jurisdictions on transparency on an international scale?

Jonathan Djanogly: That may be the case, but it has not been said in public.
	There is a hint in the impact assessment that, amazingly, provides only two alternatives—do nothing and rely on voluntary campaigns, or jump all the way to the Bill provisions and propose company registers, with companies reporting annually to Companies House. But why does the impact assessment not review more focused registration regimes? That will now need to be addressed in the other place.
	This is not an academic issue. In particular, there seems to have been a wholesale disregard for the material impact that these provisions will have on privacy. People can buy assets privately unless the asset is public, such as a listed stock. They may not want other people to know what they own; they may have cultural, security or even religious-based concerns about people knowing that they own part of a company. What evidence do the Government offer in the impact assessment to justify destroying this right of privacy? Very little.
	As for the increase in the regulatory burden, the impact assessment talks of implementation costs on companies and ongoing costs. It also says that the costs to people who need to register their interests cannot be ascertained, and those are the same people who may have to take expensive advice.
	Investment in British companies is also threatened. The impact assessment methodology is again flawed, because it looks at the quantity of companies affected, not the quality. In other words, one lost huge Chinese investor deciding not to use or invest in an English company could be very damaging to UK plc, even if a thousand single-owner tiny companies say that this measure will not impact upon them. Again, the impact assessment does not support the Government’s contention that they remain convinced that this reform will be good for business and the UK business environment.
	What the IA actually says is:
	“There is a risk that we have not accurately accounted for this potential impact on overseas investment in the UK and UK competitiveness . . . particularly since the UK will likely be a ‘first mover.’”
	One has to ask why we should be the first mover, with associated risks as we claw ourselves away from recession.
	And here’s the rub: foreign companies will not have to keep this register, which means that British people who legitimately wish to retain their privacy will be forced not to use English companies, but to use, say, Irish or British Virgin Islands ones instead. As always, it will be the relatively small, unsophisticated businessman who bears the weight of regulation aimed at catching drug smugglers, which I suggest these proposals will fail to do anyway.
	Looking at this Bill as it goes to the other place, I would consider abolishing the need for companies to file annual returns of their PSCs—that is, returns that will be outdated within five minutes of being filed. Accepting that the company PSC register is instigated to comply with the G8 and G20 requirements, if the company does not wish to release the PSC register voluntarily, the applicant should have to ask the court for access. I suggest that the proper purpose grounds for access should be restricted to national security, personal safety issues and tax investigations.
	In this way Government crime and tax agencies would be able to make their inquiries, but the registers would still protect privacy for those companies that wished to respect this right. At the same time, the unjustified costs and regulation of keeping the central register would be abolished and foreign investors would not be put off investing in the UK. Finally, investors, especially British investors, would be saved the irrationality of having to trade through UK branches of foreign companies in order to retain their privacy rights. There is time for the other place to review these provisions, and I hope it does so.

Matthew Hancock: Given that there will be no winding-up speeches in this debate, I would like to say for the record that many of the points that my hon. Friend has made, and made eloquently, will be considered in the consultation and, no doubt, in the other place. The key is to deliver on the agreements we have made internationally, and to do so in a business-friendly way. There are reassurances we can give on some of those
	points, and I know that he is meeting the Minister responsible in due course. I hope that gives him some satisfaction.

Jonathan Djanogly: I am very pleased indeed to hear that confirmation from the Minister. I look forward to having further meetings and seeing progress, because I can assure the House that there is a lot of concern about these provisions out there in the country, and it needs to be listened to.

Bill Esterson: The Bill has the words “Small Business” firmly in the title, but the measures it introduces also cover employment. We did not discuss what the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) talked about at all, but a strong theme running through much of what we did talk about was the insecurity that is endemic in our society today, whether for small businesses or in employment. The question that I do not think has been answered in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading is whether the measures in the Bill will address that insecurity.
	We had some very good debates on pub companies, and an amendment that will help family brewers was made in Committee. That will go a long way towards helping that sector. Then we had yesterday’s fantastic decision by the House to support the market rent only option, which Members across the House and many outside have long campaigned for. I know that Elaine Lynch of the Weld Blundell in Lydiate will be one of many publicans in my constituency who will welcome that decision.
	Another issue we debated long and hard, including on Report, was late payment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) said, we will have to wait and see whether the Bill makes a difference in practice. One in five business failures are the result of late payment. Some £39.4 billion in late payments, or £38,000 on average, is overdue to small businesses. The Government have missed an opportunity by not supporting our amendment on an automatic 8% charge on late payments. As the Forum of Private Business has stated, that would have made a significant difference and gone a long way towards reducing the time and cost that small firms spend chasing late payments, allowing them to concentrate on growing their business and creating jobs.
	I think that opportunities have been missed with regard to employment, zero-hours contracts, the exploitation of workers and abuse of the national minimum wage. The Government have promised to do things without actually putting measures in the Bill. We will have to wait and see whether they make a difference or not. In my constituency, 40% of workers are paid less than the living wage. Across the country that is a huge problem for many people and their families, whether as the result of the growth in part-time work, zero-hours contracts or bogus forms of self-employment. The reality is that the change in the nature of employment and the growth
	in low pay are fundamental reasons why the deficit has gone up, despite the Government’s claim that they would get it down, because tax receipts are not being collected. That is the reality of what life is like—

Eleanor Laing: Order. I asked the hon. Gentleman to be brief. I trust that he will listen to the Chair.

Bill Esterson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I made that point because the Bill was an opportunity to tackle some of the problems at the heart of our economy, to build an economy that works for small businesses and for ordinary people, and I do not think that the Government have come anywhere near that. That is why we need a Labour Government to support small business and people on low pay. This Bill is a missed opportunity. I hope that the Government can deliver on some of the things they said in Committee and on Report, but we will have to wait and see.

Nadhim Zahawi: In the short time remaining I will make only a few points and post the rest of my speech online. This is an ambitious Bill. The Government have, for the first time, legislated specifically for small business, which will strengthen the recovery and see further support directed to Stratford’s job creators.
	On procurement, the Labour party left office with only 6.5% of public procurement going to small and medium-sized businesses. Not only were smaller firms denied a chance to compete on a level playing field, but the taxpayer was denied value for money. The Bill will put that right.
	Next, and crucially for businesses in my constituency, the Bill contains important measures on access to finance. Everyone agrees on the need for more competition in the business lending market. The Bill will open that market. Banks will be required to refer businesses to other providers and, crucially, business lending data will be available for new challengers. This is about making sure that finance keeps up with the economic recovery.
	Alongside access to capital, the Bill addresses cash flow through, in particular, measures to create a more responsible payment culture. The payment practices of all large companies will now be published, the prompt payment code will be strengthened, and the public sector will lead by example.
	Three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration, the debate was interrupted (Programme Order, 18 November).
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	Question agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Opposition Day

[Unallotted Half-Day]
	 — 
	EU Justice and Home Affairs Measures

[Relevant documents: Twenty-first Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Session 2013-14, The UK’s block opt-out of pre-Lisbon criminal law and policing measures, HC 683, and the Government Response, HC 978; Seventeenth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, The UK’s block opt-out decision: summary and update Report, HC 762; Nineteenth Report from the European Scrutiny Committee, Documents considered by the Committee on 5 November 2014, HC 219-xviii; Ninth Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2013-14, Pre-Lisbon Treaty EU police and criminal justice measures: the UK’s opt-in decision, HC 615, and the Government Response, HC 954 Eighth Report from the Justice Committee, Session 2013-14, Ministry of Justice measures in the JHA block opt-out, HC 605, and the Government Response, HC 972; First Joint Report from the European Scrutiny, Home Affairs and Justice Committees, Session 2013-14, The Government’s response to the Committee’s Reports on the 2014 block opt-out decision, HC 1177]

Yvette Cooper: I beg to move,
	That this House endorses the Government’s formal application to rejoin 35 European Union Justice and Home Affairs measures, including the European Arrest Warrant.
	This is a very clear motion. In fact, it is a bit of a Ronseal motion—it does what it says on the tin. It means that today we can support 35 measures, not just 11, and it includes the three words that we were promised: “European Arrest Warrant”. It includes other measures, too: football banning orders, confiscation orders, joint investigation teams, criminal records sharing, and border information sharing so that we can secure our borders. Those are important measures, because crime does not stop at our borders—criminals do not stop when they get to the channel. I had hoped that the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary would be able to sign the motion, but the Home Secretary has written to me to say that she will vote for it. I am glad that she has decided to support our motion, although it would of course have been so much easier if she had just been straightforward in the first place.
	This motion is almost exactly the same as the one tabled in the House of Lords. While we got to vote on only 11 measures, the other place was offered a vote on all 35. Here is the revealing statement by the Minister in the Lords:
	“the Government have amended the Motion to put beyond doubt that we see tonight’s debate and decision…as on the whole package of 35 measures that the Government will seek to rejoin in the national interest.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 November 2014; Vol. 757, c. 328.]
	While we were denied our chance to vote in the elected Commons on the European arrest warrant, the Government decided to assuage the doubts of the House of Lords. They decided to do that last Tuesday. Just 24 hours after the mess in the House of Commons, they decided to change the motion in the Lords—so why not do it for us?
	I will give way to the Home Secretary if she can give us any good reason why she did not come back to this House last week and table a new motion, as she had in the other place. She was prepared to do it there, so why not come and do it here? No reason is being given. We were happy to do it for her, however, because she promised us a vote on the European arrest warrant. She said that the vote will be
	“on the whole package of 35 measures—including the Arrest Warrant”.
	The Prime Minister promised us a vote on the European arrest warrant. He said that
	“we are going to have a vote…before the Rochester by-election”.—[Official Report, 29 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 301.]
	We understand that the Home Secretary has a rather contemptuous view of the Prime Minister’s promises. He promised democracy in policing; she delivered 13% turnouts. He promised, “no ifs, no buts”, that he would meet his net migration target. The net migration target is going right back up, and the Home Secretary said that it was not a promise, but a “comment”. Labour Members are glad to be able to help the Prime Minister to meet his promises to the British Parliament. It looks as though we are doing a rather better job than the Home Secretary of helping him to meet his promises.

Tony Baldry: Look, some of us kind of lost the will to live on all this last week, and I think if we go through all this procedural stuff again today we will seriously lose the will to live. I think we have all had our fun. Will the shadow Home Secretary now move on to the substance of the European arrest warrant so that we can sort it once and for all, have a vote, and go home? I think we would all be grateful if we could just do that.

Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Home Secretary has deprived him of his will to live, so I feel sorry for him, but he is right that we need to get on to the huge amount of substance in this debate.
	I must say that the most startling thing of all in the chaos of last week’s debate was not the betrayal of promises or even the contempt for Parliament, but seeing the Chief Whip and the Home Secretary having to sit next to each other on the Government Front Bench and having to talk to each other for a change.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does my right hon. Friend share my surprise that the intervention by the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) was not to thank her for giving the House the opportunity to demonstrate the good faith of the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister said—quite clearly, I think—that there would be a vote on a specific measure, so I look forward to interventions by Conservative Members thanking her for giving them such an opportunity, not passing that over as if it had never been said.

Yvette Cooper: I am sure that Conservative Members are all deeply grateful to us, which is why they have come to the Chamber to join the debate today.
	We still do not know whether it was the Chief Whip or the Home Secretary who made so much of a mess of last week. In June, the Chief Whip said of the Home Secretary that she
	“lacked intellectual firepower and quick wit”.
	He said that “she has no friends”, and with amazing prescience, he said that
	“she can’t even gain the support of her colleagues”.
	That makes two of them, because the Chief Whip is on a roll. He nearly lost a vote—he came within 10 votes of doing so—last week. The man who is supposed to be working the bars of Westminster lost a vote on pubs this week. The man who is supposed to be holding the parliamentary Conservative party together has managed to mislay two MPs. When he was appointed, he said that his new job was
	“to ensure the right people are in the right place”.
	It is just a shame that they were in the wrong Lobby.

Eleanor Laing: Order. I appreciate that the right hon. Lady is making some very important and interesting points, but I should remind her, lest she stray too far, that the motion is about the Government’s formal application to rejoin 35 European justice and home affairs measures. I am sure that she will address her remarks to the motion.

Yvette Cooper: You are exactly right, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is in fact the debate that we should have had last week. It is a debate about 35 different measures, including the European arrest warrant. It covers the 11 measures that we voted for last time, but also the 24 measures on which we did not have the chance to vote last time.
	Those measures include a series of different things. We need the supervision order, under which a UK national could spend time in the UK pending trial, rather than in a foreign jail, to rectify the rare cases in which that happens. Joint investigation teams are needed to tackle cross-border crime, as was shown by Operation Golf, in which co-operation between the Met and Europol and data sharing stopped child-trafficking rings that were bringing teenagers to London to be raped and forced into prostitution. We need co-ordination on the freezing and seizing of the assets of organised criminals and terrorists. We support continued co-operation on confiscation orders and freezing orders. We need to exchange criminal records. Pilots in London have shown that a significant proportion of foreign nationals arrested already have convictions abroad.

Mike Gapes: Operation Golf was conducted in my constituency, and I hope to talk about it if I get the chance to speak. It would not have been possible without co-operation between the British and Romanian authorities, including on the Romanians’ subsequent use of an extradition warrant. Is it not wrong—in fact, disgraceful—that we did not have an opportunity to discuss the joint investigation teams during the previous debate?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. It would have been so simple to cover those measures in the initial debate on a straightforward motion tabled by the Government. I think that it is unprecedented that the Opposition table what should be a Government motion and ask the Government to vote with us on the very measures that they supported in the first place.
	The 24 measures include football banning orders, which we welcome, to stop hooligans travelling to matches in Europe. We need to participate in Eurojust to gather
	evidence on cross-border crime. We need Europol to support and co-ordinate cross-border investigations. We need co-operation to prevent drug trafficking, and we need the European Police College to share best practice.

Keith Vaz: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way and hope that she will excuse me for interrupting her. She is clearly on a roll, because I cannot remember a time on which the Home Secretary has written to my right hon. Friend to say that she will support one of her measures. When the Select Committee on Home Affairs considered the matter, we suggested that the vote should have happened much earlier and that the House should have voted to give the Government a mandate to negotiate, rather than it being left to the last moment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should really have discussed these matters a long time before?

Yvette Cooper: My right hon. Friend is right. The truth is that the Home Secretary’s handling of the whole thing has been chaotic from start to finish. We have had no proper opportunity to debate the subject and have a vote at the right time and we have had confusion about when we were going to have the votes at the wrong time. We had parliamentary confusion, votes in chaos, Tory MPs scuttling back from their dinners, champagne banquets abandoned and a humiliated Prime Minister returning to the House of Commons with his tails between his legs.

Theresa May: I think I heard the right hon. Lady say just a few moments ago that one of the measures she wanted to debate was the European Police College. Perhaps she has not noticed that CEPOL is not in the list of 35 measures that the Government are rejoining, because it has been “Lisbon-ised” and does not need to be in the list. It falls out of the opt-out altogether.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary knows that an awful lot of the measures she has removed from the 35 are in fact measures that she plans to continue to co-operate with. There is a whole series of different aspects of guidance and pledges for co-operation across the policing and Eurojust world that she plans to continue to co-operate with. However, she has told her Back Benchers that she will not co-operate with them at all so that she can promise them a grand repatriation, when in fact it is the equivalent of repatriating the “Yellow Pages”.

Geraint Davies: My right hon. Friend knows that this is really about co-operation across Europe to bring thousands of villains to account. How can we have faith in the Government if they cannot even co-operate with their colleagues in the House of Lords so that we can have the same debate, or give us enough time to consider the right thing to do, instead of this complete farce built on a hoax?

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I heard somebody on the Government Front Bench muttering that there are different procedures in the House of Lords—different procedures that mean that they are allowed to vote on 35 measures, but we are allowed to vote on only 11? I have never heard anything so ludicrous.
	The Home Secretary has been ducking and diving on this issue from the start. There are important measures in the 35 that we should be supporting and debating, and too many times the Home Secretary has tried to duck having a vote on them. The Schengen Information System II is vital and necessary. The recent Public Accounts Committee report that set out that there had been a 70% increase in delays in asylum claims also pointed out that the British Government have less information about criminals crossing our borders than other countries, and that is because we are not part of SIS II. The Home Secretary has not been able to join SIS II because she has been so busy renegotiating her opt-in, opt-out hokey-cokey for the sake of pandering to her Eurosceptic Back Benchers. We should be part of SIS II and we should be voting for it today.
	The Association of Chief Police Officers has described the European arrest warrant as “an essential weapon”. Distinguished legal figures, including the former president of the Supreme Court, have argued that Britain also risks becoming a safe haven for fugitives from justice, a handful of them British citizens but the vast majority foreign nationals wanted for crimes elsewhere in Europe. They are right. For example, Zakaria Chadili from France was alleged to have travelled to Syria in late 2013 and undergone a month of training with a proscribed organisation. Instead of returning to France, he came to the UK and the French police wanted to arrest him. Between his first court appearance on 9 May and the orders for extradition on 13 June were just a few days, and he was surrendered on 25 June. In a similar case from 1995, before the European arrest warrant, Rachid Ramda, an Algerian national, was arrested in the UK in connection with a terrorist attack on the Paris transport system and it took 10 years to extradite him back to France.
	The statistics are clear: the European arrest warrant helps us to deport foreign criminals and terrorists. More than 1,000 people were removed because of an arrest warrant last year. Of those people, 43 were UK nationals, eight of whom were connected to child sex offences. Since 2009, 500 people have been brought back to the UK to face British justice, including suspected child sex offenders and those suspected of murder, rape and drug trafficking, and more than 4,000 people have been removed, including more than 100 for murder, more than 300 for serious violence, more than 400 for drug trafficking and more than 500 for robbery. The arrest warrant helps us to bring to justice people who have committed heinous crimes in the UK and who should be facing British justice, and people who have committed crimes abroad, whom we want to deport from this country to face justice at home.

Geraint Davies: My right hon. Friend is being generous in giving way. Swansea has the most overcrowded prison in Britain. Does she agree that this measure is very important because, over the past five years, it has meant that 5,000 people have been removed from Britain to face justice abroad, with only 5% of the total moving in the other direction? Unless we continue using it, we will have an even greater crisis in our prisons because they will be full of foreign criminals.

Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. We do not want people to be stuck in British prisons when they should be facing trial and justice abroad. It would not
	be fair on victims of crime if we denied them justice because we did not have the procedures in place to ensure that people faced the courts. We do not want British families to be left without justice. We do not want the UK to be a safe haven for dangerous criminals.
	It was right that the arrest warrant should have been reformed. We have supported the reforms that have been passed by this Government and have backed further reforms in Europe. The European Commission has concluded that
	“it is essential that all Member States apply a proportionality test, including those jurisdictions where prosecution is mandatory.”
	The Polish Parliament has taken through legislation that follows those principles.
	Crime does not stop at the channel. That is why it is right that we should have the chance to show our support, right across the House, for the measures today.

William Cash: Will the right hon. Lady concede that the European Union is not a sufficient basis on which to make such judgments? What about countries such as Turkey, Canada, Australia and the United States? What is so special about the European Union that the arrest warrant should apply specifically to it, rather than to the rest of the world?

Yvette Cooper: The point is that the European Union provides us with opportunities to be able better to fight crime and get justice for British citizens and citizens right across Europe. It is good that we can ensure that our police forces can co-operate more effectively with other police forces across Europe, whether they are dealing with trafficking, drug smuggling or child protection. There are so many crimes that cross borders and so many criminals who cross borders that we think it is a good thing to be part of Europe and to have the opportunity to work more closely with other European countries to deliver that.

Andrew Gwynne: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to set out the benefits of cross-border co-operation with other crime-fighting agencies across Europe, but is not the real issue one of democracy, in that elected Members of the House of Commons, whichever side of the debate they are on, have not been given the opportunity to have a say on these issues? Is not the reason behind that that it will show the deep schism on the Conservative Benches on the issue of Europe?

Yvette Cooper: That, in the end, is what it comes down to. Sadly, too many Conservative Members do not want to vote for something just because it has the word “Europe” in the title. That is what Conservative Front Benchers have been running scared of. It is why they have ducked and dived around to avoid having the debates that the Select Committees have called for, to avoid having the votes that they promised, and to avoid having an honest discussion about what the measures are. The ridiculous thing about it is that the vast majority of Members of this House supported the 11 measures the Government allowed us to vote on last week. There is strong support and consent for the measures. There should be an opportunity for us to send a strong signal to the courts and everybody across Europe that this House is strongly in favour of the measures, including the European arrest warrant.

Alan Beith: I just want to place on record the fact that the Select Committee on Justice, although it was severely critical of the Government’s handling of the matter from the beginning, has supported the five measures that the Government wish to opt into. I am pleased that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government have been firm in their determination to opt in.

Yvette Cooper: That is the bizarre thing about this whole situation. We had the opportunity to demonstrate the House’s support for these measures to everyone, particularly the courts—we know that Eurosceptics have made challenges in the courts to any aspect of legislation that they can challenge. Why do we allow them to do that without having a vote that shows the House’s strong support for the measures? The right hon. Gentleman is right that Select Committees have supported them, and the debate in the other place also showed support. Many Lords who strongly objected to the process that had been followed, even in that House, said that they supported the measures and wanted the opportunity to signal that support. We need to send that important signal, whether on football banning orders, the European arrest warrant or the other co-operation measures, and we now have the opportunity to do that.
	We need co-operation to stop international crimes such as human trafficking and online child pornography, and to protect people and get justice for victims. So last week, I told the Home Secretary that I would support her motion. Today, I am glad she has said that she will support mine. These are unusual circumstances, and there were many other issues that we would have been keen to debate this afternoon, from the bedroom tax to the national health service. However, we thought it was right to ensure that the House had the opportunity to meet the Prime Minister’s promises and demonstrate its support for these crucial international crime-fighting measures. We need to demonstrate the strong support throughout the House for co-operation with Europe. We have the opportunity today to have a straightforward vote on the European arrest warrant and European co-operation measures, and to do what it says on the tin, even though the word “Europe” is in the title. I hope that the whole House will support the motion.

Theresa May: We return to an issue that has been much debated in the House. Last Monday was the sixth time that it was debated on the Floor of the House since the Government announced that they were minded to exercise the opt-out in October 2012. We had debates that month, in June and July 2013, and in April, July and November this year. The Government have published two Command Papers providing the House with the provisional and final lists of measures that we are seeking to rejoin, and with full impact assessments on the final list. We have responded to four parliamentary inquiries on the matter and to the joint report of the European Scrutiny, Home Affairs and Justice Committees in April. I am grateful for the scrutiny that those Committees and other hon. Members have given to this important matter, and I am happy to return to it today.
	This is an issue that the shadow Home Secretary judges so important that she curtailed debate about it last week; so urgent that she strung it along for another
	week; and such an issue of principle that she is determined to try to score political points about it even though we agree on the substance of it.
	As the Justice Secretary and I made clear to the House last week, and as I made clear to the right hon. Lady in an open letter the day before, the Government saw last Monday’s debate and vote as being about the whole package of 35 measures, including the arrest warrant, that we want the UK to remain part of in the national interest.

Wayne David: Will the Home Secretary clear up for the benefit of the House the simple fact that there was no reference to the European arrest warrant in the Government’s motion in the House of Commons last week, but there was in the motion in the House of Lords? Will she please explain why that was the case?

Theresa May: What I have just said about our view of the debate—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to be a little patient and wait for my answer to his question. As I have made clear, we felt that the debate was on the 35 measures, and Mr Speaker made clear that hon. Members could speak about all those measures in the debate. In the House of Lords it is open to the Government to amend an affirmative motion—something not open to the Government in the House of Commons—so when the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands (Karen Bradley), said that there were different procedures, she was absolutely right.
	Last week we had the opportunity for a full day’s debate. The hon. Members for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) complained about a lack of debate last Monday, but that was because the shadow Home Secretary moved a motion that cut short the whole debate. We are now able to debate today’s motion, and as the right hon. Lady has made clear, there is nothing in it for the Government to disagree with, so we will support it.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does the Home Secretary think that the wording of the motion last week was in the spirit of what her Back Benchers understood when the Prime Minister offered a debate and vote on the European arrest warrant? Did it reflect what he said to the House of Commons, and does she think her Back Benchers believed that?

Theresa May: I am clear that there was no requirement on the Government to bring the measures, other than those in the regulations, to the House, or to hold a debate on the Floor of the House on those regulations. There would normally have been an hour and a half debate upstairs in Committee, but we chose to bring it to the Floor of the House and to use a business motion to extend the debate. We chose to say to the House that we were clear that because the debate was about only those measures in the regulations that required a legislative instrument, we would nevertheless be bound by the vote on the whole package of measures, including the European arrest warrant.

Wayne David: rose—

Theresa May: The hon. Gentleman may wish to carry on talking about procedure, but I want to get on to the issues and I am happy to do that.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Is the Home Secretary surprised, as I am, that the shadow Home Secretary’s speech was all about procedure, not the policy area? She did not mention the fact that one major concern of a number of us on the Government Benches is that we are ceding powers to the European Court of Justice for the first time, and therefore taking away some parliamentary supremacy. I would like to hear the Home Secretary’s views on that.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right and I am well aware that for a number of right hon. and hon. Friends the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is key. I have been clear—as I was in previous debates—that the issue of our relationship with the European Court of Justice should be in the work that we will do as a Conservative Government after next May’s election to renegotiate our relationship with the European Union. That, of course, is not in the motion tabled by the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) today, and there is no reference to it or to the overall opt-out issue.
	I think I am right in quoting the right hon. Lady as saying that the opt-out was an opt-in, opt-out “hokey cokey”. I remind her that that opt-in, opt-out hokey cokey was negotiated by the previous Labour Government. I am not sure from her comments whether she now supports our decision to exercise the opt-out, which, as I have said, the Labour Government negotiated, voted against last year, and have never said whether or not they would use. Is she congratulating the Government on successful negotiations in Europe and bringing back a deal that is good for the UK? Does support for our package mean that she supports the return of around 100 powers from Brussels and the largest repatriation of powers since this country joined the EU?
	I am pleased that today’s motion supports all 35 measures, because last time the Opposition called a debate on this matter in June last year they highlighted only seven measures that they wanted us to rejoin. The list did not include Eurojust, which the right hon. Lady has now said that she supports, or the prisoner transfer framework decision, which allows us to send foreign criminals home to serve their sentences. It also left off the asset recovery office, which allows law enforcement to pursue the criminal proceeds of crime.

Yvette Cooper: Can the Home Secretary give a single example of a moment when she has put to Parliament the opportunity to vote on any of those measures?

Theresa May: I have made it absolutely clear, and I will repeat it again for the sake of any doubt, that the Government did not have to be bound by any vote in this House on the European arrest warrant. There was no legislative requirement. We were very clear—

William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Theresa May: I will give way to my hon. Friend in a moment. We were very clear that the only measures that needed legislative motions in this House were those in the regulations. We would be bound by the vote on those regulations as a vote on all the other measures in the package of 35. As I have said, this is the sixth debate we have had on this matter.

Yvette Cooper: rose—

Theresa May: If the right hon. Lady will forgive me, I will give way to my hon. Friend who indicated that he wished to intervene before she did.

William Cash: As my right hon. Friend knows, I accused her and the Government last week of chicanery, which, put another way, means relying on legal quibbles to try to achieve an objective. The fact is—I am sure she will accept it—that these issues involve the application of the European charter of fundamental rights. In that context, is she now going to tell us that the charter of fundamental rights does apply to the United Kingdom?

Theresa May: I am tempted to say to my hon. Friend that I suspect he knows more about legal quibbles, and has more experience of them, than I do. I have to say to him that the view the Government take on the charter of fundamental rights is the same view. We are consistent in that view: we consider it to be declaratory only and we do not consider that it applies to the United Kingdom. I know he has a different view on this, but that is the consistent view the Government have taken on this matter.

Dominic Raab: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Theresa May: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I did say to the right hon. Lady that I would take her intervention.

Yvette Cooper: The Home Secretary now says that her position is that she does not actually have to offer the House of Commons a vote on anything and therefore we should be grateful for the 11 measures we got to vote on last week. When did she say that to Parliament? Is it not the truth that she said repeatedly, over many months, that she would give the House a vote on the measures? She did not say that she would not give the House a vote because she did not have to; she said she would give the House a vote. If she has changed her position, why did she not say that before?

Theresa May: The right hon. Lady really needs to understand the difference between a requirement on the Government to bring a vote to this House and a decision by the Government to bring a vote to this House, which we did last Monday. I also say to her that for most people looking at these measures, the issues are whether they are important measures for the Government to opt back into and whether they are important measures for law enforcement. It sounds as though we have absolutely the same opinion on that and I would be happy to be able to get on to questions about the measures themselves.

Dominic Raab: On the opt-out from the charter of fundamental rights, this is not a matter of political opinion anymore, because Justice Mostyn has made it very clear that our opt-out does not apply. Whatever one’s view on the implications of that, it leads to the argument, at least in this House, that we should be sceptical about opt-ins and the relationship with the EU on these matters. There is a constant salami slicing of both our opt-outs and our democratic control.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has made a considerable study of these matters, as the House is aware, but I have to say to him the same thing I said to my hon. Friend
	the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash): the Government’s position on the charter of fundamental rights has not changed. We have maintained a consistent position and our position is not changing.

Angie Bray: I must say that many of my constituents who take a great interest in this issue will be very frustrated that the Labour party seems only to want to discuss process and not talk about the really important issues. My right hon. Friend will recall that recently I raised with her the concern of my constituents who found themselves living alongside a convicted murderer from Latvia, about whom they had no idea and nor did the local police. Does my right hon. Friend agree with my constituents that it would be absurd not to opt back into the system for sharing information on criminal records? Does she also agree that, if anything, the system needs to be more rigorous and comprehensive to be more useful?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Opting back into the European criminal records information system, which is one of the 35 measures we wish to opt back into, and to the exchange of criminal records is very important. We need to enhance our ability to exchange criminal records with other member states. Going back into Schengen information system II will also enable us to have more information of this sort at the border. We are doing a project with the Latvians and one or two other member states to improve our ability to deal with these issues, but there are challenges. For example, some countries have a different attitude from us to criminal records—in some countries, as soon as somebody is out of prison, effectively there is no criminal record—and as part of our discussions, we have to deal with those differences if we are to do what we all want to do, which is keep people safe.
	I welcome the fact that the Opposition agree with the Government’s position on opting back into the 35 measures. It is a pleasure to agree with the right hon. Lady so often in one week: I understand the Labour party thinks that immigration was too high and out of control under the last Government; that it was a mistake not to have the full transitional controls to stop significant migration from the new member states; and that we must take action to reform European free movement rules. As a final step, perhaps she could ensure that her party agrees with the Conservative party’s commitment to an in/out referendum so that we can get on with the good work of negotiating a better deal for the British people.

Yvette Cooper: rose—

Theresa May: I assume the right hon. Lady wants to say that Labour’s position has changed and they support the Government on an in/out referendum.

Yvette Cooper: Will the right hon. Lady tell us the level of net migration now and how it compares with her target—her “no ifs, no buts” promise?

Theresa May: I am happy to tell the right hon. Lady that the figure for net migration into the UK is down by a quarter from its peak under the last Labour Government.

Yvette Cooper: Will the right hon. Lady confirm that it came down by a quarter under the last Labour Government and that net migration is at exactly the same level now as it was when she became Home Secretary?

Theresa May: The fact I quoted is absolutely correct: net migration is down by a quarter from its peak under the last Labour Government. Furthermore, net migration from outside the EU is down to the levels of the late 1990s—something that never happened under the last Labour Government and has only happened because of the action taken by this Government to control immigration.
	I welcome the opportunity to reiterate the Government’s support for the package of 35 measures, including the arrest warrant, which help us to tackle serious crime and keep this country safe. I think that the right hon. Lady’s commitment to the arrest warrant would carry more weight if, when in government, she and her party had taken action to address the concern that many people raised about how it was being operated—concerns that were eroding the public’s trust in this important measure.
	Since 2010, we have made the important reforms that the Opposition failed to make in the previous eight years, and our law enforcement and prosecution agencies, the devolved Administrations, the Extradition Law Committee in the House of Lords and other experts, including the Lord Chief Justice, all wish us to continue to use the arrest warrant to bring offenders to justice and keep our country safe. That is not the arrest warrant bequeathed to us by Labour, but the arrest warrant that now has proper protection for those wanted for extradition, including British citizens. We have taken positive action to address the issues that have caused people such concern.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: How confident is my right hon. Friend that after 1 December, when the Court of Justice of the European Union will decide whether an arrest warrant issued by another member state is valid, the protections brought into domestic British law will prove to be robust?

Theresa May: I am confident that some of the measures we have taken to deal with concerns raised about the EAW, such as proportionality, are measures that are available to other member states and which have not been challenged in the way my hon. Friend suggests.

Sammy Wilson: The Home Secretary has mentioned the importance of contact with the devolved Administrations and police services in other parts of the UK. What contact has she had on these issues with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland and the Police Service of Northern Ireland?

Theresa May: There has been considerable contact with the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland; there has been contact with all the devolved Administrations on this matter. I have personally had a discussion with the Justice Minister in the Republic of Ireland about it. If the hon. Gentleman will be a little patient, I will come on to make reference to the difference that the EAW makes to extradition as between the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. That is an important issue, and if we were to come out of the EAW, it would be a matter of concern both to the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland and to the Justice Minister in the Republic of Ireland.

Kenneth Clarke: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Gerald Howarth: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Hon. Members: In unison!

Theresa May: Should I go left or right? [Laughter.] I suspect that in the interest of balance, I should give way to both my hon. Friend and my right hon. and learned Friend, but I think my right hon. and learned Friend has seniority.

Kenneth Clarke: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the valuable improvements she has made to the arrest warrant were achieved by negotiations with other member states—they were Europe-wide—and that we were strongly supported by, for example, the German Government who also had concerns about the proportionality of the arrest warrant and by many member states regarding the problem of the Polish constitutional position, which did not fit in with everybody else’s. All this was sorted out in a perfectly friendly negotiation, led very much by my right hon. Friend, and its enforcement would be guaranteed by the jurisdiction of the European Court of law if that were ever called upon, which is very unlikely. Better that, however, than 28 separate Supreme Courts putting their interpretation on the rules that we have now sorted out.

Theresa May: My right hon. and learned Friend is right that we have had discussions with other member states on the European arrest warrant. Indeed, some other member states, notably Poland, will take steps themselves to change the way in which they approach this particular issue in their legislation. That would mean fewer trivial or smaller cases resulting from the European arrest warrant. The changes we have made are, of course, changes we have made in domestic legislation here in the United Kingdom. The House has had the opportunity to vote on them and to put them through.

Gerald Howarth: Further to the point made by our hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), I do not think that he and I have quite the same touching faith as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) in the European Court of Justice. Is it not the case that however we see the ECJ interpreting things now, by opting into this European arrest warrant now, we do so in perpetuity and we will for ever be subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ—unless we leave the European Community? What upsets and concerns so many Conservative Members, and indeed people across the country, is that we are surrendering a power to the ECJ over which we have no control whatever. It is a surrender of sovereignty that many of us just feel unable to accommodate, even though we understand the forceful argument on security that the Home Secretary makes.

Theresa May: Let me say to my hon. Friend, as I did to a previous intervention, that I fully accept the concerns that a number of right hon. and hon. Members have about the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, but this is not an issue confined to the measures we are considering today. As part of the opt-out/opt-in decisions we take for measures brought forward in the justice and home affairs area post-the Lisbon treaty, we look at the question of jurisdiction because the jurisdiction of the ECJ applies to those measures as well. We have opted in
	to a number of measures on the basis that a balanced judgment of the importance of those measures and the benefits they bring outweighs the concerns that my hon. Friend has raised. He uses the term “in perpetuity”, but as I said, if we have a Conservative Government after May 2015, we will have the opportunity to renegotiate a relationship with the European Union and a number of issues can be dealt with within that. Both the Prime Minister and I have indicated that we think free movement should be included within it, and I believe that our relationship with the European Court of Justice is another candidate for consideration in those negotiations.

Alan Beith: I want to point out that the Government were right not to opt in to a series of standards measures where we are already well above the standards precisely, because it unnecessarily imported European Court of Justice jurisdiction into our own system.

Theresa May: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The Government made a conscious decision not to ask to opt into those minimum standard measures, precisely because of the impact that doing so would have had in relation to the justice system.

Geraint Davies: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Theresa May: I have given way a number of times, but I will give way one further time to the hon. Gentleman.

Geraint Davies: The Home Secretary—who has not given way to me until now—has just said that she is in favour of opting back into the 35 measures. A moment earlier, she said “If you vote Conservative, we may end up with a renegotiation”, which implied that she would reconsider whether to support those 35 measures. Which is it?

Theresa May: I have made clear my view that our relationship with the European Court of Justice could well be one of the measures that should be part of the renegotiation and part of the process of looking again at our relationship with the European Union, which would happen after the election of a Conservative Government in May 2015, leading to an in-out referendum by the end of 2017. I hope that that is now clear to the hon. Gentleman.
	I want to discuss some of the issues surrounding the European arrest warrant, given the degree of concern that it has raised among Members in the past. One such issue is that of lengthy pre-trial detention, which was highlighted by the case of Andrew Symeou—a case that has been championed relentlessly by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) in the interests of his constituent and his constituent’s family. Our reforms of the arrest warrant mean that, when the requesting country is not trial-ready, we will not extradite people. Had the measures that we have now passed been in place at the time, they would have allowed Mr Symeou to raise, in his extradition hearing, the question of whether a decision to charge him and a decision to try him had been made. It is very likely that they would have prevented his extradition at the stage at which he was due to be surrendered, and could have prevented it altogether.
	We have reformed the arrest warrant to make it possible for cases to be heard in the requesting country before an extradition hearing, either by video conference or by temporary transfer, with the consent of the person
	concerned. That may lead to a withdrawal of the arrest warrant in some cases. We have also reformed it so that British citizens, and others, can no longer be extradited for minor offences. The reform came into effect in July, and has already resulted in the turning down of 21 arrest warrants. That has freed police and court time so that more serious matters can be dealt with, and, crucially, has protected individuals from the sledgehammer of extradition for minor offences.
	The Government have reformed the rules on dual criminality to ensure that an arrest warrant must be refused if all or part of the conduct for which a person is wanted took place in the UK and is not a criminal offence in this country. The National Crime Agency is now refusing arrest warrants when it is obvious that the dual criminality test has not been met. It has done so 59 times since our reforms came into force in July.
	Our reforms have been implemented, and they are already making a difference. I believe that the arrest warrant is operating more fairly, and it is British judges who have the final say on whether or not to extradite people. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot)—whose wife is an extradition judge—said last week,
	“The suggestion that there is no judicial oversight of European arrest warrants in this country is nonsense.”—[Official Report, 10 November 2014; Vol. 587, c. 1228.]
	That is absolutely right, and, thanks to our reforms, British judges are now better able to protect the interests of British citizens.
	I am also pleased to have the opportunity to remind the House of a few of the problems involved in the alternative system of extradition that we would have to fall back on if we were not part of the arrest warrant, namely the 1957 Council of Europe convention on extradition. First, returning to that convention would require changes to domestic legislation in a number of member states. While we would be able to control our own legislative urgency, we would not be able to control what other member states did. For some, it would take months or even years to make the necessary legislative changes. The Netherlands, for example, has made it clear to us that it would take at least 18 months for it to change its domestic legislation, which would mean that UK criminals could travel to Holland with impunity and vice versa. That would have made the UK a virtual “safe haven” for some of Europe’s most dangerous criminals, and would have allowed UK criminals to hide from the law, which is certainly not an option that appeals to me.
	Secondly, using the convention would mean a return to the days when extradition requests were sent to Ireland, perhaps more in hope than in expectation. Before the introduction of the arrest warrant, fewer than 10% of our requests to Ireland for individuals connected with terrorism resulted in their being returned to this country. Members should compare that with the present situation. We are not aware of a single request to Ireland for terrorism-related offences that has been refused. That is surely why—as I said earlier—the authorities in both Dublin and Belfast are such strong supporters of the arrest warrant and our continued participation in it.

Sammy Wilson: Does the Home Secretary accept that the comparison she is making is not a fair one, given that many of the extradition requests that were made to
	the Irish Republic were turned down often on political grounds? Of course, those grounds have now been removed because of the constitutional changes that have been made recently.

Theresa May: I understand that the political scenario has changed over the years, but the Justice Minister in Belfast and the Justice Minister in Dublin in the Republic of Ireland have been keen to impress on the Government their concern to ensure that the UK remained in the European arrest warrant, precisely because it now provides a much smoother and easier process to enable extraditions to take place successfully.

Mike Gapes: The Home Secretary is making an excellent case for the European arrest warrant. Why did she not put that forward two weeks ago? She could have made the case then.

Theresa May: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman but I cannot remember whether he was in the Chamber for the debate a week ago on Monday. However, I made exactly these sorts of argument in that debate. Other right hon. and hon. Members would have been able to express their concerns about or support for the European arrest warrant had that debate not been curtailed by his Front-Bench team.

Keith Vaz: Could the Home Secretary clarify one point? Has she notified the European Union that we are opting in already, is she waiting for this vote, or did she do so after last week’s vote?

Theresa May: We have not yet notified the European Union. [Interruption.] Someone says, “Why?” It is partly because the timetable has not required us to notify the European Union by that point.
	Thirdly, under the convention, we would return to a system where 22 other member states would not extradite their own nationals to the UK and where, owing to constitutional bars, there would be no hope of that situation changing for some countries. In the last five years alone, those 22 states have extradited 105 of their own nationals to us to stand trial. That would end if we returned to the 1957 convention, and victims, and their families, would suffer as a result.
	The convention would also mean that, if there is a long delay between the offence occurring and the extradition request being made, extradition can be refused because of the length of time that has passed under a state’s statute of limitations.

Chris Heaton-Harris: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Theresa May: May I first give a concrete example of that? Last month, Philip Gordon Knowles was jailed for eight years after being found guilty of four counts of gross indecency with a boy under the age of 14 and eight counts of indecent assault on a girl under the age of 16 in the St Helens area in the 1970s. His conviction followed his extradition from Spain using the arrest warrant. In an earlier age, Knowles would have escaped justice. Under the 1957 European convention on extradition, the length of time that had passed between his offences and his extradition being requested would have rendered him immune to prosecution by the Spanish authorities, and he could not have been extradited. It is thanks to the arrest warrant that Knowles is now behind bars.

Chris Heaton-Harris: I thank the Home for giving way to me a second time. She has made two cases—the reason for opting in and what would happen if we went back to the 1957 protocols—but there were other choices. A couple of years ago, there was the chance to try to have a bilateral treaty with the EU, or indeed individual member states within it. Equally, as the treaties stand, there are transitional arrangements under which the current arrangements could continue. Could she comment on those? I know that the commonly held view in her Department was that the transitional arrangements would be quite short, but I have gathered from the European Commission that they could go on for quite some time. I would appreciate her view on that.

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has raised two important points. I will address both of them. He refers to the temporary transitional extension. The option that is proposed to extend that transitional period for a significant time would require secondary legislation to override the primary treaty right of the UK to opt out of measures and would effectively override the opt-out itself. That is a precedent that no one would want to set. A transitional decision is proposed by the European Commission. We have no vote on its adoption. We would have no power to amend the drafting of the decision and it could extend to all 135 measures and make them subject to ECJ jurisdiction to boot. That would effectively hand over our power on this matter to Brussels, which would determine it for us. I think that that would run entirely counter to our aim of bringing powers back from Brussels.
	The other point is that it has been clear in discussions we have been having with the European Commission that the purpose of the transition arrangement was, for a very limited period, potentially to ensure that while the process of opting in was taking place there was no operational gap, so that we would make sure there was no point at which it was possible for somebody to claim that an arrest warrant, for example, was no longer operational as a result of the decisions we had taken.
	In relation to the suggestion that we could have negotiated a separate treaty with the European Commission, reference is often made to the Danish position on that, but in fact that is different as the Danes have no alternative option for participating in the JHA measures. Protocol 36, the opting-out decision protocol, sets out our ability to opt out and to rejoin these JHA measures, so it puts us in a different position. The EC argues that that provides us with an adequate ability to go into these measures, and therefore renders a third-country agreement unnecessary.
	Given my hon. Friend’s interest in European Court of Justice jurisdiction, the other point I would make is that in all the measures Denmark has negotiated separate arrangements on with the EC, it has been required to submit itself to the jurisdiction of the ECJ. That has been the price of getting the negotiated agreement with the European Commission, so I really do not think it is an option that resolves the issues my hon. Friend and others have concerns about.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Theresa May: I am conscious that this speech is taking rather longer than I had intended, but I will give way.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My right hon. Friend’s speech is taking a long time because it is so interesting and important. Following on from the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), I wanted to say that there are three points the Home Secretary has just mentioned where Her Majesty’s Government have negotiated with the Commission and have accepted the Commission’s no as authoritative without really pushing. This does not bode particularly well for an attempt to renegotiate the treaties after the next election.

Theresa May: The fact is that we have been able to go into the negotiation with the European Commission and other member states, wanting to rejoin 35 measures, and the package we have brought back is rejoining 35 measures and not more measures. Many people said to us, “You will not be able to negotiate 35 measures. The European Commission and other member states will require you to join more measures.” They have not done so. The negotiation in that sense was successful, and contrary to what my hon. Friend says, I think that bodes well for the future.
	I want to say a little more about some of the other 35 measures. I have mentioned already that they include important tools such as SIS II, the second generation Schengen information system. We are scheduled to join it shortly. It further strengthens our ability to detect foreign criminals at the border, including individuals wanted in their own countries for serious crimes such as rape and murder.
	When the UK connects to the system, we will gain access to 51 million alerts, including on individuals who pose a very real security risk, such as foreign fighters who have travelled to Syria and Iraq and who could pose a serious risk to this country on their return. It is a tool that I am sure the whole House will want us to have at our disposal.
	The package of measures also includes the Council decision on child pornography, which ensures that international co-operation to tackle this abhorrent crime is prioritised and that collective pressure is put on internet companies to tackle the disgusting crime of online child sex abuse wherever it takes place.
	The package also includes Europol, which does excellent work to tackle cross-border crimes—under its British director, Rob Wainwright—and Eurojust, which often operates hand and glove with Europol, such as during the horsemeat scandal early last year. As I have already said, the package includes the European criminal record information system—ECRIS—as well, which has dramatically increased the number of criminal record checks on foreign nationals, and also the prisoner transfer framework decision, which helps us to remove foreign criminals from British jails.
	The package also includes joint investigation teams, which allow our police and their European counterparts to co-operate in cross-border operations, such as Operation Birkhill which saw five criminals sentenced to a total of 36 years’ imprisonment this summer for their involvement in the degrading trafficking of over 120 women from Hungary, the Czech Republic and Poland into the UK.
	These are all vital measures which the Government were clear we should remain part of in the national interest. We have exercised the opt-out, which the Labour party negotiated but voted against using. We have brought
	back some 100 powers from Brussels which the Labour party gave away. We have negotiated a good deal to remain part of a much smaller package of 35 measures in the national interest, despite being told by the Labour party that we should have sought “guarantees” that they did not bother to negotiate into the Lisbon treaty.
	It is this Government who are providing leadership on European issues. We have cut the EU’s budget, secured an exemption from the new EU bank bail-out fund, vetoed a new treaty and secured a position of real influence in the Commission. That is leadership—an issue I know the party opposite might not want to discuss at the moment. Where this Government are leading, I am happy to see the Opposition follow, so I am glad to have the support of the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford today, but given her party’s failure to reform the arrest warrant, her opposition to our exercising the opt-out, her refusal to back the repatriation of powers and her continued efforts to deny the British people their say through an in/out referendum, it is clear that the Labour party can never provide the leadership that this country needs on Europe.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. There will be a seven-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches in today’s debate. We will start with seven minutes, but it might be necessary to reduce the time.

Keith Vaz: I thank the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), for giving the House this opportunity to discuss the European arrest warrant. I know that others claim we discussed it last week, but frankly the proceedings then were totally shambolic. Bearing in mind the fact that the Home Affairs Committee published its report on this matter on 29 October last year, in which it called on the Government to ensure that Parliament had as much say in this process as possible, it is a huge disappointment that it is only now—12 days before 1 December, the date on which we have to opt in—that Parliament has a real opportunity to discuss these matters.
	I am an admirer of the Home Secretary and of her work on the landscape of policing. When she leaves her office when Parliament ends on 30 March, she will be able to point to the real changes she has made in that area. I have to say to her, however, that this has not been the Home Office’s finest hour. We had a real opportunity last week to give Members the chance to discuss the European arrest warrant, but that was not possible because of the shenanigans surrounding the motion and the vote.

William Cash: The Home Affairs Select Committee has done a splendid job, but will the right hon. Gentleman also acknowledge the fact that the Justice Committee—not to mention the European Scrutiny Committee—has played a pivotal role in ensuring that we have at least examined these matters?

Keith Vaz: I was just about to say that. I do not want this to sound like self-congratulation—[Hon. Members: “Oh yes you do!”] Oh, all right—I do! I concede that
	point. To have united the three Chairs of the Select Committees and all their members, given their different politics and personalities, is a unique achievement for any Government. I am minded to join those on the two Front Benches in the Division Lobby to support the motion, if only to see the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary in the same Lobby at the same time—I am not sure who will get there first—but I shall not be voting tonight. I am sure that my extra vote would not count for much anyway, given that the motion will be passed, but this is the only way I have of expressing my exasperation at the insufficient time we have had to discuss these matters or to look in real detail at the European arrest warrant.
	The Home Secretary is right to say that there have been changes since we started last year, but those changes do not go far enough to deal with the kinds of issues that were raised in the Select Committee by several Members, including the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), and the hon. Members for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and for South Dorset (Richard Drax), all of whom came and talked about specific examples.
	I am not against the principle of the European arrest warrant. The Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary have made a powerful case in support of that principle. The problem lies in the practicalities involved and the difficulty in exercising any control—we have none—over jurisdictions in other countries. Poland has been mentioned. We have had more European arrest warrant requests from Poland—2,400—than from any other country in Europe. The Home Secretary says that Poland is changing its legislation.

Tony Baldry: The fact is that these are mostly for Poles going back to Poland—they want their own Poles back—and they are not for our citizens.

Keith Vaz: Of course if the Poles want the Poles back, they should have them back. The problem is that Poland is issuing these arrest warrants because it does not do so when it is prosecution-ready; a judge has no jurisdiction in these matters and these things are just issued, no matter what the case is. We cannot intervene in Polish legislation to try to change that position. The right hon. Gentleman talks about Poland having the Poles back. There are 1,000 Polish people in our prisons as foreign national prisoners and if Poland wanted them back I am sure the Home Secretary would be delighted to send them back to Poland. However, they are still in our prisons.
	The fact is that these practicalities do stand in the way of justice. As Lady Hale said in the case of PH, HH and FK, this rests, in the end, with the other national countries of the European Union; it does not rest with us. So no matter what we do in the House today, those practical difficulties remain. I know that successive Governments have tried hard to change the situation, but we cannot intervene in the legislation of other countries. That is why we get these absurd cases where European arrest warrants are issued for people without the need to hand them out. The figures show that 28% of people arrested in our country are foreign nationals, half of whom are from the European Union. The cost of executing a European arrest warrant is
	£20,000—it costs that each time. The figures for arrests and surrenders show 5,184 arrests and 4,005 surrenders, so we are talking about 1,179 more arrests than surrenders.
	That is why we needed an early debate on this matter. We do not need to go right up to the wire, with 12 days to go before the end of these discussions. Parliament, especially constituency MPs, who have real issues to raise, should have had the opportunity to raise this matter before. I am sorry that the Government did not listen to what my Committee said clearly a year ago, in paragraphs 85 and 87 of its report. Paragraph 87 stated:
	“To date”—
	this was a year ago—
	“we have been disappointed with the extent and timeliness of the Government’s involvement of Parliament in scrutinising the 2014 opt-out and proposed opt-in. We hope that it will engage more constructively with Parliament for the remainder of this process.”
	Now, with 12 days to go, we have our first real debate on this issue, thanks to the shadow Home Secretary tabling this motion.
	We have just been told by the Home Secretary that she has not even notified the European Union that we are going to opt in. Bearing in mind the paperwork involved and the way in which the Home Office deals with its paperwork, I have a suggestion to make to the right hon. Lady: when she signs her letter, she should give it to the hon. Members for Hexham (Guy Opperman) and for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery), who are sitting behind her, and make sure that they take it straight to the European Union headquarters in Brussels. Otherwise, given the history of the Home Office, this deadline will be missed, like so many others.
	I hope the Home Secretary will, in her wind-up, further reassure the House that the points made by Members of this House in their evidence to my Select Committee and the reports the three Select Committees have issued will be taken even more seriously than they have been in the past.

Damian Green: It is always a privilege to follow the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). It is an unusual experience for me to be able wholeheartedly to support an Labour party Opposition day motion and a unique opportunity to support such a motion that entirely and in every detail endorses Government policy. It thereby makes two things clear: the success of the Home Secretary’s negotiating skills in arriving at the right package of measures into which we need to opt back to keep Britain’s streets safer; and the success of the Government’s policy of maintaining a pragmatic and sensible use of European Union institutions and powers to help the people of this country. The overarching issue before us today is why we are opting back into these 35 measures, particularly the European arrest warrant.
	I am conscious that many of my hon. Friends have detailed objections to the way in which the warrant has worked in the past, and to the alternatives. But it is worth starting with the overriding point that if we set the word “European” aside for a moment—I know that that is difficult—this is an international arrest warrant.
	As such, what it does is simply speed up the work of the police and the courts. It means that criminals and terrorists, once they are caught, can either be brought back to Britain for crimes committed abroad or be removed from this country to face justice elsewhere in Europe, so saving time and money in our prison system.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Damian Green: I will give way in a second. Expressed in those terms, it is impossible to imagine that anyone would disagree with it, and we would not be debating this—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Damian Green: Let me pick and choose. I give way to the former Solicitor-General.

Oliver Heald: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Of course it is not a perfect agreement, but does he agree that it is a lot better than what went before, whereby it used to take 10 years in some cases to extradite criminals who had left our shores and whom we wanted back. Equally, if we have criminals from overseas who are on our territory, then of course we should send them back quickly to their own countries.

Damian Green: I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend. Indeed, it is the speed of operation of the European arrest warrant that is one of the most significant improvements over what was there before. I simply invite the House to consider this for a second or two not as a European issue but as a public safety issue. We live in an increasingly dangerous world in which criminals operate on an international scale and in which this country is a particular target not just for international terrorists but for serious criminals of all types. The three biggest and fastest growing international crimes are the trafficking of guns, drugs and people across frontiers, which is precisely why we need international measures such as the European arrest warrant to make us safe.

Bob Stewart: For me, the crucial factor in deciding to support the European arrest warrant was precisely that the police and security services wanted it so that they can do their job better. That was pivotal in my decision to support it.

Damian Green: My hon. Friend is wise in his decision. We have had some facts and figures that back up both his judgment and the judgment of the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary. Over the past five years, slightly more than 5,000 people have been extradited from the UK to Europe after an arrest warrant was issued. They include suspects wanted for 124 murders, more than 100 rapes, nearly 500 serious assaults, and in connection with seven terrorism cases. For those who rightly worry about the fate of British citizens, only 217 of those 5,000 were British—just 4.3% of the total.
	Since 2009, the arrest warrant has also seen 647 people returned to this country to face justice, including 51 suspected killers, 80 suspected paedophiles, 46 suspected violent thugs and one wanted terrorist. The warrant works both ways and it works effectively. Without the arrest warrant, there are 22 EU member states that could refuse to extradite their own nationals to the UK,
	including Spain, France and Germany, so it does act in the safety of our country and our citizens as well. The question for those who oppose the European arrest warrant is: can it be worth putting the safety of our fellow citizens at risk a bit more than it is now for the genuine constitutional concerns that they have? I hope that even those who are against our opting back into the European arrest warrant will admit that not opting in would put the safety of our fellow citizens in this country at greater risk. They might well say that that would be worth while, but I hope that they acknowledge that fact, given the surprising unanimity about it among experts in law enforcement and criminal justice.

Douglas Carswell: Surprise, surprise.

Damian Green: The hon. Gentleman says that, but the job of police officers and criminal justice agencies around the world is to keep citizens safe. When they recommend that something is keeping us safe, we should take them seriously.

Dominic Raab: We can all agree that looking out for our security is the job of the police and the intelligence agencies but, as my right hon. Friend demonstrated so valuably in his campaign against identity cards and 90 days’ detention without charge, it is our job to scrutinise what goes on.

Damian Green: I absolutely agree. As my hon. Friend knows, I am not an uncritical admirer of everything that the police do, and nor do I take on board what they say as a matter of course, but I am struck by the words of some of the best police officers throughout Europe. Keith Bristow, the head of the National Crime Agency, says:
	“The European Arrest Warrant is by far the best way”
	of bringing criminals back to the UK to face justice. As we have heard, Rob Wainwright, the director of Europol—a Brit—has said that
	“the European Arrest Warrant has resulted in one of the most dramatic improvements of international law enforcement in recent times”.
	We should take such views seriously.
	The best objection to the EAW has always been the cases of British citizens who have been extradited—perhaps wrongly—and held for long periods. I accept that such cases have been the subject of many effective campaigns, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes). However, the context of the debate has changed, as we now have reform under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. One of the biggest changes since the measures came into effect in July is that there have been a significant number of judicial refusals of arrest warrants, which represents a significant step forward for preserving the safety of our constituents who might have fallen victim to judicial or policing mistakes made in other European jurisdictions.
	Given such progress, I urge those who oppose our opting back into the EAW to acknowledge that their essential objection is the fact that this is the “European” arrest warrant. There is a danger that the debate gets taken away from law and order. We need extradition treaties with other countries, and the alternatives to the warrant are much slower and less effective. Some treaties do not work satisfactorily, such as that we signed with
	the US, a democracy with a perfectly good judicial system, so it is clearly not true that the European Union and the European arrest warrant cause unique problems.
	Crime fighting is an aspect of life in which instinctive, habitual, institutional co-operation among European countries makes life better for everyone who lives in them. We all agree that that is true for free trade and protecting the environment, and it is also true for crime fighting. The measure improves British citizens’ safety and quality of life, which is why I support the motion and the Government’s policy.

Graham Stringer: I congratulate the shadow Home Secretary on putting before the House a simple and straightforward motion. This difficult and complicated issue involves sovereignty, international crime and the future of the European Union, so it is right that elected Members—even those of us who do not agree with the shadow Home Secretary—can vote on such a straightforward motion.
	If the debate was just about the improvements that the Government have made to the European arrest warrant, it might be possible to vote for it, although as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) pointed out, many of those improvements do not go as far as they should. If this was simply a matter of the speed of getting through the judicial process, it would be easy to vote for it, for the reasons given by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green). But it goes much deeper than that. There are justices and injustices involved.
	I do not know how to balance the injustices suffered by some people against the undoubted benefits derived from the European arrest warrant. How do we say to Symeou, Dark, Hainsworth, the Kings, Dines and other people who have suffered injustices, “Your injustice under the European arrest warrant is worth going through because it enables us to bring other criminals to court more quickly”? We cannot balance things that way. If we could, I would be interested to know what metric could be used.
	The basic issue is not the speed of justice or improvements to the EAW. It is the fact that by entering the European arrest warrant system, we are giving recognition to courts throughout the European Union and passing sovereignty over to the European Court of Justice. To anybody who has read the accession documents just on Croatia—the same comments could be applied to Romania, Bulgaria and a number of other European countries—it is almost beyond dispute that those countries do not have a criminal justice system like ours. Theirs is subject to corruption and political interference, yet we are saying that the European arrest warrant procedure agreed in those countries will be recognised and followed through in this country.
	I do not see how we can honour what has been honoured in this country for nearly 800 years—habeas corpus—when we allow British citizens to be taken by foreign courts that are subject to political interference and corruption, and locked up without the evidence being produced.

Oliver Heald: It is not as though nothing is being done about that. The group of states against corruption, of which the UK is a very strong member, is doing work
	on these very issues—on corruption in courts and in Parliaments. It is going through the countries that the hon. Gentleman is talking about, reporting on these issues, highlighting them and pressing the Governments.

Graham Stringer: That is a fair point, but anyone who had been locked up in Romania or Croatia would not be pleased to hear that the situation will improve at some time in the future. The debate is among British politicians who are pragmatic; the arguments put forward by the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary were powerful, pragmatic arguments about how there would be immediate benefit, but that is not the argument going on in the rest of the European Union.
	Like many of the changes in the European Union, acceptance of the European arrest warrant is seen as a way of furthering integration. We are not entering into arrangements for the European prosecutor’s role, but I can almost guarantee—as much as one can guarantee anything in future—that in four, five, six or seven years’ time we will have adopted the European arrest warrant, this country will be in Eurojust and it will not look right if we are not in the European prosecutor system. We may well get a decision from the European Court of Justice that says, in effect, that we have to be in the European prosecutor system.

Nick de Bois: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, through the use of the European arrest warrant, British citizens could be extradited to face charges under the European public prosecutor’s office anyway if prosecuted for those charges?

Graham Stringer: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and that might be one of the arguments used to drag us into the process. The European Union is a thin-end-of-the-wedge organisation; once it has started, it will move on to further integration.
	The right hon. Member for Ashford made a powerful case, as have many Members, for dealing with international crime and keeping terrorism out of the country, which we all want—there is nobody in the House who does not want to deal with international terrorism—but what we have with the European arrest warrant is Hobson’s choice: we must either take what is put before us or have a poorer system, in pragmatic terms, in the short term. If the Government are serious about renegotiating our position in Europe, they should not be giving up negotiating positions like this. We should be asking for a better position, rather than saying, “Yes, we’ll go along with that because there is nothing else available.”
	The right hon. Member for Ashford also made the point that many of our crime-fighting agencies, such as the police and the security services, like the European arrest warrant. They do not always follow the rules themselves, but our security services have for some time preferred to have terrorists in London, rather than elsewhere, so that they can watch them. I think that is a bad policy, but I mention it because I do not think that we should always take at face value what is said by police forces and the security services.
	I will finish with a powerful point made by the shadow Home Secretary in the previous debate that I think is worthy of an answer. She said that the fact that
	there have been miscarriages of justice under the European arrest warrant does not mean that we should get rid of it. We do not remove the police’s power of arrest just because they sometimes abuse it. That is absolutely right, but it does not mean that, when opting into something, we should not look for something better than what we are getting from the European arrest warrant.

Dominic Raab: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and, I must say, rather refreshing, because I agreed with every word he said—it was common sense from start to finish.
	Earlier this month I visited my constituent Colin Dines, a retired recorder and a man of impeccable character. He was issued a European arrest warrant in 2010 after being accused of a tendentious, tenuous involvement in a telecoms fraud in Italy. He has never been interviewed by the Italian authorities, which would at least have given him a chance to clear his name, and he has never been given the opportunity to present evidence showing his innocence. The key Italian suspects were all acquitted a long time ago.
	Despite the incompetence of the Italians and the manifest innocence of my constituent, he has languished under the threat of prison for four and a half years. The case limps on with no resolution in sight, with Colin stuck in legal limbo. It has cost his family an enormous sum of money. Colin suffered a stroke just days before he was due to be surrendered to face either an Italian jail or possibly house arrest, and that was the only reason why the warrant was temporarily suspended.
	That case brings shame on British justice, but it is not an isolated case—they are all too frequent. Do not take the word of a politician on that; listen to this country’s most senior criminal judge, the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Thomas. He has stated publicly that the problems are systemic because fast-track European arrest warrant extradition assumes common standards of justice across Europe. We all know that is a sham, whether it is the Greek or Italian systems, let alone the post-Soviet systems in place in central and eastern Europe.
	We all agree in this House that EU extradition is vital to fight crime, so a rather false choice is being put up—the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton summed that up rather well. The truth is that what we object to is the scattergun approach under the European arrest warrant, which devastates the lives of too many innocent people. Let us remember what this House was set up to do: defend innocent people from bullying by arbitrary rulers. If we believe in British justice, we cannot allow that to continue—not for the price of returning a few criminals, or even many criminals. I would like to hear from all those who have been making that very utilitarian argument how many innocent people should be sacrificed for the return of 10 or 20 criminals, because that is the false choice that they are putting up.

William Cash: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Does he agree that, basically, the reason the Government are giving in to these proposals is that they have an inclination towards, if not an obsession with, making sure that we stay within the framework of European law as it is prescribed rather than looking at the fundamental changes that are needed?

Dominic Raab: I thank the Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, who makes a valid point that I will come on to address. There is certainly an element of truth in what he describes.
	I want to pay tribute to the changes that the Government have made. I recognise that some additional checks have been introduced. However, as Fair Trials International—we should bear in mind that it has handled these cases—and, today, Liberty have made clear, those checks are wholly and woefully inadequate to stop the flow of injustices. The proportionality test is too skewed in favour of extradition; the safeguard to prevent “hit and hope” warrants is too flimsy; there is nothing to deal with mistaken identity; and, perversely, appeal rights were weakened, not strengthened. We never got a chance to scrutinise those measures on the Floor of the House, because they were slipped through in Committee. That is a shame, because I, and colleagues, would have wanted to be able to try to strengthen the safeguards. It should have been debated on the Floor of the House on Report. I twice tried to table amendments, but we were given no time.
	It is crystal clear from the rising volume of EAWs that Britain receives that we will have more problems ahead. This year the number of EAWs we received reached almost 8,000—a record number. With this broad net, it is almost inevitable that more and more innocent Britons will face rough justice and be caught within it, and, as a result, be subject to Kafkaesque courts and gruesome prison conditions.
	I do not think that the checks are inadequate: I know that they are, because since July, when they came into force, I have been contacted directly by another victim, Keith Hainsworth, a 64-year-old tutor of ancient Greek. In July, with his wife, he visited the Peloponnese region of Greece, where they pottered around ruins and old churches, at the time of a local forest fire. The couple’s hire car was spotted in the vicinity—by a well-known local mischief-maker, as it subsequently turned out when they got to court—and on the strength of that alone, out of the blue, he was arrested in October in France under an EAW on his way back from a weekend away in Paris. He was apprehended by British customs officials who took his passport. He was denied basic rights. He spent a month under house arrest in France. He was surrendered to the Greeks to be held in awful conditions for 30 hours. He was charged for a bottle of water. That is what you get as a Brit abroad in some of these jails. When he finally faced a Greek judge, the court was in almost comic disarray at the farce that had come before it and dropped the case immediately, but not without Keith Hainsworth and his family having been traumatised and subjected to a legal bill of £40,000. Let us ask ourselves how many of our constituents could afford to pay that. If it can happen to him, it can happen to anyone, and nothing in the new legislation will stop it.
	I want to pick up on a point made by the former Justice Secretary, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who is no longer in his place. Ministers have been very candid in saying that there has been no renegotiation of the EU framework decision because there is no renegotiation to be had. It is clear that there is no possibility of revising the framework decision. I might take a different view if there were, but that is not on the cards. That tells us that we have a stark
	choice: either we opt out and negotiate a bespoke extradition treaty with the EU, as one member not 27, that allows streamlined extradition—no one wants to go back to the bureaucracy of the past—but with proper safeguards, or, mark my words, we will continue to hang our constituents and British citizens out to dry. The Home Secretary made it very clear today that there is a legal basis on which to do that; the issue is political will, on our side and on the EU side.
	We have heard a string of scare stories about the operational cliff edge that police would face if we opt out, but no one is suggesting that we opt out and do nothing. That is not a serious suggestion by anyone in this House, so we do not need to dwell on it for too long. If someone wants to intervene on me, I would be happy to take a question on that. We cannot have it both ways. It cannot be suggested that Britain would somehow become a safe haven for the worst criminals if we are outside the EAW, when that is precisely why all our EU partners have a strong mutual interest in agreeing a new extradition relationship, as long as we had made our position clear.
	This debate is not just about extradition; it is about something far bigger. Everyone wants strong operational co-operation with our EU partners, but we are a global nation and we should be able to do that, as we do with many partners from around the world, without sacrificing democratic control. Why is it only with our EU partners that giving up democratic control, whether to the ECJ or to harmonise laws, is the strict red-line condition on co-operation, when it is not such a condition with the Australians, the Canadians or the Americans?
	The long-term direction of travel is very clear, as Viviane Reding set out in a speech for the Commission last year.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. When the three Front Benches agree on a law, is it not normally a bad one?

Dominic Raab: I take my hon. Friend’s point, but it does not matter how many people agree—or how many law enforcement people stand up and do the bidding of whoever—because our job is to scrutinise the proposals. I must tell him that very few people who support opting in have given me examples of victims to whom they have spoken. When I sat on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I spoke to a range of victims, and others now approach me regularly. What has been lost in this debate is not only their voice, which is why it is so important that we are having the debate, but the systemic nature of the problems.
	In the time available, I want briefly to make it clear that the direction of travel is very obvious. The Commission makes no secret of the fact that we are heading towards a pan-European code and an EU public prosecutor, with the ECJ presiding and ultimate accountability being to an EU Justice Minister. We see such stepping stones being paved in the package of measures that we are opting in to. We see it with the new EU public prosecutor, and Jonathan Fisher QC has made it clear that our opt-out from it is in tatters and is already ineffective. If we do not take this opportunity to step back, when will we get a better moment to renegotiate our relationship in this vital area?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. The House will be aware that a great many Members are seeking to catch my eye and that very little time is available. I must therefore reduce the time limit for Back-Bench speeches to six minutes.

Pete Wishart: Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, that certainly was some night last week, wasn’t it? It was the great European arrest warrant debate that never was, and the night we apparently passed something as important as the European arrest warrant by proxy. In my 14 years as a Member of Parliament, there are certain things I thought I would say in the House of Commons, but I thought that asking Mr Speaker that “the Question, That the Question be not now put, be now put” was something belonging to a Monty Python sketch, not to a Hansard report of the House of Commons. I wondered how all that would appear to my constituents, but they loved it. They thought that it was surreal comedy at its finest, to the extent that one of them asked, “Is it like that every night, Pete? If it is, I would never have voted to leave this place.” Here we are: we are all back in our seats—like déjà vu—all over again, only this time we have an actual vote on the European arrest warrant to accompany the debate.
	The Tory obsession with European exit has taken us to the very point of withdrawing from a process that ensures the effective transfer of foreign criminals to face justice. Listening to some Conservative Members—I have a great deal of fondness and respect for some of them—it seems to me that anything prefixed with the word “European” is viewed with maximum suspicion, and that anything involving European co-operation and EU nations working together is to be resisted at all costs. Let us be clear that that is what this is all about. This has absolutely nothing to do with the most effective and convenient way of ensuring that criminals are brought to justice, but everything to do with keeping Europe out of any role in the institutional affairs of the United Kingdom.

Nick de Bois: May I ask the hon. Gentleman to look through the other end of the telescope? Is not his thirst and love for the EU encouraging him to put the expediency of a process over justice for innocents?

Pete Wishart: I want to come on to that point, and I will mention a particular case about the use of the European arrest warrant that concerns me.
	What are the Government doing about this growing Euroscepticism? They are in and out of the home affairs chapter as though they were doing the hokey cokey at the UKIP Christmas party—first we are in, then we are out, then we shake it all about like a “kipper” in a Kent by-election. This may or may not be a really good day for the Government to have a debate about the European arrest warrant. We have the Rochester and Strood by-election soon, and, as it looks like the Tories will be overwhelmingly defeated, the rebellion this evening will be minimised. However, this debate will also suggest to Farage, the rest of UKIP and the Euro-exiters that the Government are still in thrall to the European Union.
	The Government are doing the right thing tonight in not opposing the motion, and I support them, but I encourage them to take on the “kippers” a bit more than they do, rather than pandering to them. See what pandering to UKIP has done: the Government’s opinion rating has gone down faster than a UKIP comment at an equalities convention. Now this monstrous race to the bottom on EU exit has been joined by the Labour party. It is getting stuck in, too, but all it needs to do is have a look at what has happened to the Conservative party. Do not pander to UKIP; take it on. It is the only way to do it. Our stock is rising in Scotland because we are prepared to take on the anti-European agenda and this nonsense about immigration. Is it not time that the Conservative Government and the Labour party started to take on UKIP rather than pandering to its members?

John Redwood: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why he, as someone who wants Scottish independence and to be completely independent of the United Kingdom Government, wants to put himself completely under the government of the European Union?

Pete Wishart: That is a ridiculous point. We want what all other member states of the European Union have, which is equal membership of the European Union. We want the same as Denmark, Ireland, Austria and Finland. It is very simple.
	The UK is now heading towards the European exit door like a stumbling drunk, cursing incomprehensibly. A bemused Europe watches, not knowing whether to sing “Please Don’t Go” or breathe a sigh of relief because it will soon be relieved of the surly, semi-detached, self-obsessed member. This is a UK with one foot already out of Europe and it looks like it will take my nation with it.

Dominic Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Pete Wishart: I cannot give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, as I have no more time in which to do so.
	We were supposed to be a family of nations—that is what we were told in the independence referendum—and to be equal partners within the United Kingdom, yet big brother England will drag my nation out of Europe against its will. We are like a small brother, to be scolded and told what is good for us.

Dominic Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Pete Wishart: I have no more time to take interventions.
	That is the reality for Scotland in Europe. We value our place in Europe and see support for Europe way beyond what is happening in the rest of the United Kingdom. The European arrest warrant is critical for Scotland and we value it. We do not have the ridiculous and absurd examples that are given of insignificant and inappropriate cases. The European arrest warrant has worked for us in 600 cases involving Scotland and fellow member states of the European Union. We have our own distinct legal jurisdiction. We have our own Procurator Fiscal Service and our own Faculty of Advocates, as well as our own Law Society of Scotland.
	They all support the European arrest warrant. Is it not appalling that the Government could not even be bothered to lift the phone to tell the Scottish Government that they would be withdrawing from the home affairs chapter of the European Union? There were hardly any conversations with Scottish Ministers or even Scottish officials about the renegotiation for opting back into some of these measures—

Dominic Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Pete Wishart: I cannot give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I have already said to him that I have no more time.
	This is what we see again and again: disrespect for all the Assemblies across the United Kingdom. There is no consultation and no discussion; we are just expected to fall in line.

Dominic Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Pete Wishart: I am not going to give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not know how I can, as I have no more time—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. The hon. Gentleman is not going to give way.

Pete Wishart: I cannot give way as I have no more time.
	I want to address a point about one important case in Scotland. A Polish national, Grzegorz Gamla, was convicted last December of the murder of Maciej Ciania in Leith. He was arrested by the Polish authorities within five hours of a European arrest warrant being issued. We do not have any of the silly, insignificant and unsubstantial cases that others have cited, and I think that is because we have our own jurisdiction in Scotland and because of how we look at these matters. This is not the European arrest warrant’s fault, but it might be the fault of how the Ministry of Justice looks at such matters. Perhaps it should be looking at its own procedures to see whether they can be addressed properly.
	In Scotland, we do not share the Euro-hostility that seems to pervade this House and the UKIPification of the UK in which Master Farage pulls all the strings and those on the Tory Front Bench dance along. The UKIPification of the UK is almost complete. The hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) is in his place. He will be joined by his friend on Thursday. I do not know how many other Conservative Members will resign, but I suspect it will be quite a few.
	My country is going to be dragged out of the European Union against its will because of the Euro-hostility in this place. We observe these things, but we want no part in them. We are being dragged out against our will. I just wish that the Conservatives would take on UKIP, stop pandering to it and stand up for their own values, rather than for the values of the hon. Member for Clacton and his party.

William Cash: Of course we want law and order and security—that goes without saying. The question that we are faced with at last, despite the
	shambles of last week, is whether we are effectively bending the knee to European dogma, the charter of fundamental rights and the European Court of Justice.
	The reason I shall vote against the motion is simple: I put the issue of miscarriages of justice ahead of the other issues that have been addressed. I ask the Government the following questions. What about fair trials? What about political and judicial corruption in some European countries? What about habeas corpus? What would hon. Members think if they or their families were subjected to the miscarriages of justice that we have heard about today? I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) for his tenacity and to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) and the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) for what they have said.
	As I said earlier, what is so special about the EU in respect of these questions, when Turkey may well become a hotbed of terrorism? What about the rest of the world?
	This issue smacks to me of the case of Liversidge v. Anderson in the 1940s, which related to emergency regulation 18B. It became clear that what was really at stake was the question of the state versus the individual. Eventually, after four years of agonising, the courts accepted that there had been a massive miscarriage of justice. I believe that such cases will become increasingly common when we accept the irreversible—other than through the repeal or amendment of the European Communities Act 1972—commitment to these procedures.
	If we were confronted with a Bill containing these measures, it would go through all the stages of consideration and could be amended. We are denied that because the measures are contained in European regulations. We are conceding sovereignty over a significant area of criminal law to European institutions. The key role of interpretation will pass from the UK Supreme Court to the European Court of Justice. The Spanish discovered recently in the Melloni case that the European arrest warrant can undermine the human rights protections in their own constitution.
	I raised the question of the EU charter of fundamental rights with the Home Secretary. I remind her that the matter has already been adjudicated on by the courts. It is implemented under section 3 of the 1972 Act. That section must be amended to adjust that imposition on the UK, its Parliament and its courts.
	There is the question of this being a pan-European system. Law and order and public safety have been the common themes put forward by the Government, as though they should override all other considerations, such as the sovereignty of Parliament and the protection of the rights and civil liberties of the individual. Under the enactments that we have made on behalf of the voters who send us here, we do not send our Members of Parliament to Brussels.
	The EAW is a mutual recognition measure. It relies on a parity of standards of justice that does not exist universally. The lack of that parity of standards would become even more pronounced if the EU expanded to include countries such as Albania. The EU itself reported on the unacceptable levels of corruption in the Albanian justice system as part of its pre-candidature due diligence.
	The changes that were made to the European arrest warrant in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 have yet to be proven. We do not know what
	would happen in cases such as those of Turner, Symeou, Dark and Mann, and the case of Ashya King came after the reforms. That was the case I referred to the other day, in which a poor child suffering from a brain tumour was separated from its parents, who were put in handcuffs under this outrageous miscarriage of justice.

Mike Thornton: I have a great deal of respect for the Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, but surely the point about the Ashya King arrest warrant is that it was issued by the British authorities. If my hon. Friend is going to complain about the issuing of an arrest warrant by a British authority, he has to look at the whole British justice system. That mistake surely had little to do with the European arrest warrant and was due to the British authorities.

William Cash: I also respect my hon. Friend, who sits on the European Scrutiny Committee, but my point is simple: the British authorities, in line with a continuing stream of human rights consciousness such as the Human Rights Act, the charter and the rest of it, were insufficiently vigilant. The case should have been rejected. That is the problem—the pervasive atmosphere of compliance with those things, and the European arrest warrant is part of that attitude.
	I will go further and say that in their handling of this process, the Government have completely failed to honour their repeated undertakings that they would enable Parliament to vote on the entire package of measures that they propose to rejoin. So much has been said so well by so many Members, but I wish finally to say this. Rejoining the measures in question without proper and explicit parliamentary consent would be lawful, just as it would be possible to go to war, for instance, without explicit parliamentary consent. However, the Government should reflect on the fact that we are standing up for the individual who is affected and victimised by this miscarriage of justice. The vote is going to go against us today, we know that, but in taking this course of action the Government will have exercised their prerogative Executive powers by merely sending a letter. As I said to the Home Secretary last week, that undermines the democratic legitimacy of their decision.

Geraint Davies: It is of course a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), on whose Committee I serve but whose views I do not share. He is a great champion of sovereignty and a sceptic of Europe, but we need to balance the issue of where decisions are made against the protection of our citizens. Let us think about the numbers: under the European arrest warrant over the past five years, 5,000 criminals who would otherwise be cluttering up our own justice system and prisons have been removed from the UK to face justice. At worst, in a world of disconnection from Europe, we would not have the information we needed to know that our citizens were at risk from foreign criminals, who might be rapists, terrorists or murderers. In the balance, despite what he says about individual cases, it is clearly right for Britain to protect itself from such criminals and not to allow his obsession to endanger British citizens.

William Cash: The hon. Gentleman may know that I was in a debate the other day on, I think, Radio 5 Live. One of the people representing the police on these matters said that the European arrest warrant would “save us the bother” of having to go through an extended extradition procedure. Those were the words he used—it would “save us the bother”. That is what worries me.

Geraint Davies: My understanding is that the statistics show that extradition now takes an average of 49 days, but it took a year before we were in the European arrest warrant system. The hon. Gentleman has to bear in mind the fact that each criminal would spend an extra 45 weeks in Britain without that system. There would be no transfer of information, so we would be a safe haven for criminals and have more and more foreign criminals. We are already at risk, and that in turn would put British people at greater risk. These enormous risks to life and limb should not be tolerated because of people’s particular political angst over Europe, and particularly those who—I do not include the hon. Gentleman in this—are driven by fear, prejudice and concern about UKIP breathing down their political necks. We should put the safety of people in Britain first.
	My right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary has already gone through the farcical pantomime that we experienced last Monday when the Home Secretary—who has now endorsed today’s motion, which is similar to that in the Lords—would not allow a wider debate. I know that the hon. Member for Stone would ideally like to have gone through all 35 measures, but we should at least have had a debate in the round. Only the generosity of Mr Speaker, who pointed out that we were considering specifically 11 measures and not 35, although he would allow discussion of the European arrest warrant, would have enabled us to talk about it had the debate gone ahead.
	It is extremely important to talk about the European arrest warrant and all the other measures. Somebody might own a house in the UK and be charged in Spain, and we might want their assets to be confiscated here; or we might want a list of convictions to be passed on so that sentences can be carried out properly in other countries in the light of previous convictions. We might want a supervision order so that UK citizens can be bailed in the UK rather than having to stay abroad, or a prisoner transfer so that people can serve custody at home. All those things are good for Britain. People from UKIP might not think that such measures are good for Britain, but they protect British people by enabling them to serve their custody in Britain, and ensuring that our jails are not clogged up with foreign criminals.
	I am concerned about some of the politics of this, and that the fear and cowardice of the Home Secretary in not confronting the House of Commons with the 35 measures directly was born out of fear of UKIP. We basically have a party born of the austerity created by the Conservatives, which then blames immigration for the economic poverty inflicted on people by the Tories. The Government give UKIP credibility by saying that we will have a referendum, making out that Britain could survive outside Europe, and then they say, “Oh, we’ll reform it first”, which implies that Europe as it
	stands is not worth being part of. The Government are feeding the monster of UKIP and it will be the tiger that devours them.

Dominic Grieve: I shall support the Government’s position on the European arrest warrant, which I believe to be desirable and necessary pragmatically. However, this debate would not have been necessary if we had not made what in my view was the grave error of merging the justice and home affairs third pillar into the main architecture of the European Union treaties. There is no doubt that doing that locks us into something that might cause us difficulties if in future we find it is not working properly. I have always had great sympathy with my hon. Friends on the Government Benches and elsewhere who have concerns about that. Logically they are right to do so, even though I will disagree with them tonight. Simply to gloss over that issue is not satisfactory.

Geraint Davies: That is a point well made. Everybody knows that the European Union is not perfect, that mistakes have been made and that we need reform. That is about co-operative engagement to do things that are sensible not just for the citizens of Britain but for those of Europe.

Douglas Carswell: We need to leave it.

Geraint Davies: To leave would be to expose us to criminals, terrorists, rapists and child abusers, and that appears to be a cost that those from UKIP and elsewhere think worth paying. I do not think we could look at the mothers and fathers of people who had been killed by villains if those crimes could have been prevented by co-operation—and all in the name of prejudice from UKIP and others.
	Across Europe there are something like 3,600 organised groups involved in drugs, trafficking children or terror, and they need to be confronted. There is no point pretending that we exist in some sort of fish and chip shop Britain, floating away in splendid isolation where villains cannot jump on board. If we pull ourselves out of the European arrest warrant, we could be a safe haven for them. People have made much of individual cases. We know from individual cases—Hussein Osman, the 21/7 bomber who was brought to justice from Italy thanks to the European arrest warrant; Jeremy Forrestt, the teacher who abducted a schoolgirl and took her to France and was brought back; and Jason McKay who murdered his girlfriend and went to Poland—that there is an endless list of villains who have been brought to justice by the co-operation of our emerging civilisation in Europe.
	This matter is enormously important to people across the UK. I think we all agree with subsidiarity and with taking decisions at the most local level possible. However, decisions should not be taken at the cost of deaths, molestation, abuse, trafficking or terror threats—that would be completely ridiculous. I have no hesitation in supporting the motion.

Tony Baldry: I want to make a few brief points. In July, significant reforms were introduced to procedures in respect of the European arrest warrant. There is now clearly a test for proportionality, so that
	UK police forces are not going to execute European arrest warrants for trivial or minor crimes that would not receive a custodial sentence here. It is also necessary to be able to demonstrate dual criminality; in other words, the European arrest warrant will not be executed if the offence is not also a crime in the United Kingdom. The judge being requested to issue the European arrest warrant also has to be satisfied as to the readiness of the case or, in other words, that the case is ready to go to trial and that the European arrest warrant is not simply being used as a means of detaining people indefinitely or going on some sort of fishing expedition. People are therefore only going to be extradited if the offences are serious, if the authorities elsewhere are ready to proceed and if the matters in question are also crimes here in the UK.
	Since 2009, 221 people have been extradited by the Thames Valley police under a European arrest warrant. This year, the Thames Valley police have extradited five high-risk offenders from the United Kingdom. They are people wanted for the most serious offences, including murder, terrorism offences, armed robbery, serious assault and firearms offences. Significant extraditions in 2014 by the Thames Valley police include a Polish individual wanted for grievous bodily harm and aggravated burglary in Poland. This individual had numerous convictions for violent offences. Because he was assessed as high risk, the warrant was received, processed and executed within 24 hours, thus removing a potential offender and providing reassurance to the community. Indeed, our local community in the Thames Valley has clearly been safeguarded by this person’s removal from the UK.
	An individual wanted for taking part in the murder of two youths in Milton Keynes was arrested in Holland under the provisions of a European arrest warrant. He was extradited back to the UK, where he now awaits trial. Since July, Thames Valley police have also collected one suspect under the provision of a European arrest warrant for fraud offences that had a criminal benefit of some £150,000. The European arrest warrant is being used to help to keep us safe by removing foreign criminals from our communities. That is an important point. The House has to remember that, of those extradited from the UK under the European arrest warrant, the overall majority are foreign nationals.
	The Metropolitan police show that 95% of the nearly 1,500 criminal suspects, including murderers and rapists, who fled to London to avoid facing justice overseas but have been extradited over the past five years under the European arrest warrant, were foreign nationals. Some 95% of the warrants applied to foreign nationals. Of the 1,500 criminal suspects in the Met police area—including 45 alleged killers, 35 men wanted for rape, 25 accused of child sex offences, 30 suspected armed robbers, two alleged terrorists, 130 people wanted for drug trafficking and 252 people accused of fraud—only 67, or less than 5% of the total, were Britons. This is largely about ensuring that criminals cannot flee to the UK and use it is a safe haven.
	As Lord Howard of Lympne, a former Home Secretary and no great supporter of the EU, observed:
	“I hope that Parliament will endorse the Government’s sensible approach… Justice delayed, too often, is justice denied… I have seen the benefits of the Arrest Warrant, and expressed concerns about its shortcomings. Now that this Government has acted to address those shortcomings, it should continue to be a tool at the disposal of our law enforcement agencies.”
	The arrest warrant meant that Hussain Osman, one of the failed July 2005 London bombers, who fled to Italy, could be brought back to Britain for trial in just 56 days. By contrast, the man who masterminded the Paris metro attack in 1995, which killed eight people, was able to shelter in London for 10 years before he could be extradited, because the warrant was not in force at the time. I do not think that any Member wants any part of the UK to be a safe haven for foreign criminals.
	Prior to the EAW, I can remember spending hours at Horseferry Road magistrates court and elsewhere arguing the case, while defendants were able to delay extradition because we needed individual extradition treaties with individual countries. We now have a working proportionality filter: a UK judge is required to consider whether extradition would be disproportionate; and if a person is wanted for prosecution, a judge has to take into account the seriousness of the conduct, the likely penalty and the possibility of the relevant foreign authorities taking less coercive measures than extradition. Furthermore, the Government sought to curb any lengthy pre-trial detentions, so in cases where someone is wanted for trial abroad, extradition can go ahead only where the issuing state has made a decision to charge and try that person.
	I think that the Government are right to push ahead with the EAW. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has rightly warned that abandoning it would undermine the fight against crime and risk turning Britain into a haven for fugitives, and I hope that the whole House will vote on the pragmatic grounds of public safety, rather than playing politics. The well-being and safety of our constituents are too important.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: Order. Such is the heat of the debate and the number and length of interventions, which have caused speeches to be much longer—in order, but much longer—than the limit I set, that I am afraid I now must reduce the time limit to four minutes.

Mike Gapes: It is a pleasure to follow the pro-European views of the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry). I agree with everything he said and wish to reiterate one of the points he made: of the 4,000 criminals arrested in this country under the EAW, 95% were foreign nationals. We need to make that point. The EAW is a mechanism to get bad people out of our country to be put on trial and then, I hope, convicted for crimes carried out usually in other countries. By contrast, under the “reckless” position put forward yesterday, good people—Polish plumbers and their families—would be deported to other European countries, while, presumably, the criminals, after we have left the EU, would not be, because we would not be part of the EAW. That is the position of the party that claims to be speaking in the national interest; in fact, it is doing the exact opposite.
	We benefit from immigration. EU migrants have made a great contribution to our country over many years. Our prosperity has been increased by the higher economic growth that resulted from nationals of the A8 accession countries coming here to work on our bus
	and transport systems, our health service, our shops and retail establishments, as architects and teachers and in all kinds of other occupations—even as priests. I have an excellent Catholic priest in my constituency who now runs morning services for the English-speaking community and afternoon services for the Poles and Lithuanians. We are benefiting from the migration of Europeans to our country, but at the same time we have to work with other Europeans in the interests of our country.
	In my remaining time, let me say a few brief words about Operation Golf, which I mentioned in an intervention on the Home Secretary. The Europol website has a section called “Operational Successes”. Operation Golf is the first of a list of many dealing with different countries. Operation Golf was a joint investigation team operation by the Metropolitan police and the Romanian national police. It targeted Romanian organised crime; it led to the arrest of 126 individuals and the searching of 16 addresses in Ilford, most of them in my constituency; and it led to the freeing of a large number of children who were being used in organised begging gangs.
	This operation went on between 2007 and 2010. In 2011, the Romanian authorities used the European arrest warrants to get the extradition of a man described as a “real life Fagin”. This man, Nelu Stoian, was extradited to Romania along with others to be prosecuted for their crimes. That would not have been possible without the external arrangements we have and the European arrest warrant. We should be proud of the fact that we are part of that, and we should recognise that it benefits our country.

Richard Shepherd: I want to bring the House’s attention back to the excellent speech from the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer). He touched on the central issue—the most difficult issue for me—which is the mutual recognition of other legal systems. I am puzzled why the Opposition should be so devoted to sweeping aside any consideration of something so important for our liberty and our due processes.
	The problem is mutual recognition, so let me draw attention to the dire events taking place in Perugia. This is uncomfortable for me because I am an admirer of Italy. An English girl was murdered there. The question of guilt ran through three trials, and the return of the American involved to Italy is being sought again. This is not a judicial system with which we are familiar. It is one that, painfully, did not come to a resolution. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton was right that mutual recognition is not equal standards, so people such as me feel it to be a degradation of our own legal system to be placed in such a position where we have no control over the liberty and freedoms of our own citizens. That is the key point for me.
	The Labour party had a Prime Minister who was absolutely convinced that without 90 days of pre-trial detention the state would fall. It was the Labour party that put an end to that nonsense, and the Labour party not going along with 90 days of pre-trial detention, which resulted from the hysteria of Ministers and a Prime Minister, was one of the most exhilarating moments I have seen in this House. I commend the Labour party
	for that. Why, then, does it not stand up for our own legal system, which protects the liberty of each one of us who enjoys either the jurisdiction of Scotland or own common law. That is what I am worried about—that the Labour party, which has used the law creatively to advance our liberties, is now prepared to cast away that essential control over the liberty and freedoms of the citizens of the United Kingdom.

Douglas Carswell: The motion proposes “That this House endorses” the Government’s application to opt back into the European arrest warrant. We should not do so. Mine is the only party to state unequivocally that we should not do so: there is 100% agreement on this Bench. [Laughter.] For all their huffing and puffing, those on the two Front Benches are at one on this issue. They are willing to opt to hand more powers over to Europe, and to hand over United Kingdom citizens to be extradited without evidence.
	We need extradition. It is right and proper that those who are accused of crimes in one jurisdiction can be transferred from another to face justice, and I recognise the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). We do indeed need cross-border co-operation; I just happen to think that the European arrest warrant is a bad way of arranging it. As the Baker review put it in 2011, the basis of the European arrest warrant is an
	“acceptance of a foreign warrant by national judicial authorities without an inquiry into the facts”.
	That makes a system of “tick box” extradition inevitable. Provided that the forms are filled in correctly, and irrespective of the strength of the evidence against the defendant, judicial authorities must permit extradition.
	Defenders of the European arrest warrant like to cite the new “proportionality test”, as if that would suddenly put right all that has already been found to be wrong with the system. It will not. What is needed is not a proportionality test, but a testing of the evidence in a British court. What is so objectionable about this measure is the lack of an evidential test. The “E word” is not “Europe”, but “evidence”.
	The European arrest warrant is built on the fallacy that the different justice systems in the European Union are the same—on the idea of “mutual recognition”. The justice systems in individual member states are not the same. In some member states, public prosecutors are able to exercise a wide degree of latitude, of discretion, before bringing charges; others, such as Poland, have far less discretion. In some legal systems, such as our own, there is a very strong presumption of innocence; in others, the presumption is less strong.
	Back in December 2002, before he led the opposition to the European arrest warrant, the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) told the House that if we signed up to it
	“we will be taking other…judicial systems on trust.”
	Indeed. The right hon. Member for Witney also said that he found
	“the European arrest warrant highly objectionable”. —[Official Report, 9 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 107-8.]
	Writing in The Daily Telegraph the other day, a former leader of my former party, Lord Howard, helpfully reminded everyone that, in opposition, he and his party
	had opposed the introduction of the European arrest warrant. Indeed they did. Parties do one thing in opposition, and another thing in office.
	This is not merely a question of whether to opt back into the European arrest warrant. It is also a question of credibility: the credibility of the Government Front Bench. The Government say that they oppose a federal Europe, yet today they are lining up to vote to federalise the system of extradition. They claim to want to return powers to Britain, yet today they will cheerfully vote to hand them away.
	The British left once understood what was wrong with this. It was thrilling to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) speak so eloquently and so powerfully. The British left would once have sided with individual liberty and against the power of the Euro-elites. My former colleagues should have the backbone to stand up to a Home Office Minister who is in the pockets of Home Office mandarins, and I hope that they will do so.

Michael Ellis: We have seen Labour at its most opportunistic and cynical. The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) complained vociferously about the lack of time given to this matter, but it was the Labour Government who negotiated the infamous Lisbon treaty, and did not call for any debate on the Floor of the House. If it had been left up to Labour, there would have been no time at all for a debate on the Floor of the House, and the matter would have been dealt with by an obscure Committee upstairs over a 90-minute period. Yet Labour Members now cynically suggest that there is not enough time, despite having had six opportunities here in the Chamber.
	Labour Members have also complained that there has not been enough time for this debate. Last Monday, they used an arcane procedure—it can be found on page 404 of “Erskine May”—to curtail debate. They attempt to convince people that there has been insufficient debate when they have cut hours of it short using an archaic procedure.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Michael Ellis: In a moment, if I may.
	This is not a debate about Europe; it is a debate about law and order. I spoke out in the Home Affairs Committee and in the Chamber against the European arrest warrant’s earlier manifestations, but there have been changes, which make a significant difference. For 15 years, before I came to this House, as a barrister in criminal practice, I fought for justice for individuals. It is my hope and intention to continue to do so from this place, but the reality is that the changes that have been made are significant.
	Under Labour, British citizens were extradited for disproportionately minor offences. We have changed the law to allow an arrest warrant to be refused in respect of minor offences. Under Labour, people could be extradited for conduct in the UK that was not against the law of this country. We have changed that, too, so that that can no longer happen.
	Under Labour, people were detained for long periods overseas before they were charged or stood trial. That was wrong. We have changed the law again to stop that unfairness. Under Labour, people were worried about arrest warrants being issued purely for investigatory purposes, rather than for prosecutions, so we have changed that. Under Labour, people were concerned about the prospect of being charged with offences over and above those specified in their arrest warrant if they chose to consent to extradition, and we have changed that, too. So it is a different creature. It is a different matter altogether.
	Many issues have been raised by hon. Members, including eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), but they must bear it in mind that over 95% of those extradited are foreign nationals. There are miscarriages of justice, about which it is painful to hear and which I have spent my life fighting against, but there are miscarriages everywhere. It is not the European arrest warrant that is being objected to in those remarks; often, it is extradition itself that people are unhappy with. I remind hon. Members that the Home Secretary has made changes to the extradition process as well—I cite the forum bar in that respect. Therefore, we are talking about different creatures.
	Did my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) wish to intervene?

Jacob Rees-Mogg: indicated dissent.

Peter Bone: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Michael Ellis: I will.

Peter Bone: Does my hon. Friend share the concern that this is a slippery slope to a pan-European judicial system?

Michael Ellis: I consider myself a Eurosceptic and I do not wish to see such a slippery slope. I wish to see criminals brought to justice. Like my hon. Friend, I do not wish to see people being allowed to use this jurisdiction as though it were a safe haven for criminals and people at large.
	As a consequence of those issues, I have been satisfied that the European arrest warrant in its current manifestation provides safeguards. They are never going to be perfect. Sadly, we do not have a perfect system. No such system exists where it is operated by human beings because we are not perfect. There will occasionally be miscarriages of justice, but to wipe out the whole process of expedition that now exists, because of the arrangements that have been made, seems illogical, unnecessary and not to be in the wider interests of justice. Therefore, I support the Government and their measures on this matter.

Martin Vickers: I am a Eurosceptic of the first order and voted no in 1975, when a lot of now UKIP members were voting to stay in the Common Market, so it may surprise the hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell) and indeed the Whips Office that I am supporting the opt in to the arrest warrant. Before the Whips celebrate a sinner repenting, I say to them that this is certainly the last occasion I shall be supporting a European matter.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: It is not a question of the sinner who repenteth. Even Homer nods.

Martin Vickers: That is an intervention that could be made only by my hon. Friend.
	I value the sovereignty of Parliament and the supremacy of the courts, so it may surprise Members that I have come to this conclusion, but in recent weeks I have heard and read many fine words, including contributions to the debates today and last week. I have listened with great interest to learned contributions from lawyers and Select Committee Chairmen and to good constitutional arguments and instinctively I tend to support them, but on this occasion, as with everything, it is a question of balance. One of the roles we perform here in this Chamber is to articulate the concerns of those we represent, and on this matter, although I represent an area that is by a large margin Eurosceptic, I am quite certain I am speaking for my constituents, because—[Interruption.] I am speaking for them because this is an arrangement that allows for speedy extradition, and in the modern world the aim must be to protect my constituents from the threats of terrorism and a whole range of serious criminals.
	As has already been said in the debate, this is a law and order issue. My reservations are laid to rest when I note the comments of my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary, who said in this House on 7 April:
	“We have a sensible package. We have sought to operate in the national interest and to reflect the views of the law enforcement community about what it needs to fight organised crime. I am clear that I do not want, and will not tolerate, the idea of us becoming part of a Europeanised justice system.”—[Official Report, 7 April 2014; Vol. 579, c. 93.]
	I share those views, but—[Interruption.] I share those views, but I ask whether it is beneficial to make it easier to tackle cross-border crime, and of course the answer is yes, and whether it is beneficial for our law enforcement agencies to make it easier to bring serious international criminals to justice, and of course the answer is yes.
	It is unacceptable that attempts at extradition should go on year after year after year. Justice delayed is justice denied.

Peter Bone: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Martin Vickers: No, I must continue.
	Action has been taken to ensure that an arrest warrant cannot be used for minor offences. An arrest warrant will also be refused if all or part of the alleged crime took place in the UK and it is not a criminal offence in the UK.
	The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), said that many issues could have been debated today, and I am staggered that an Opposition should use their Opposition time to debate a motion in support of the Government. They have a whole range of issues that they could mention. It is somewhat bizarre that with this motion, when 500 or so of us are going to troop through the Lobby in favour, they choose their time to highlight their own weaknesses. Their weakness is of course that they have no coherent alternative to the current Government’s economic policies.
	I reaffirm my opposition to membership of the EU, but I have always taken the view that—[Interruption.] I have always taken the view that while we are a member
	of that organisation, we should use its structures and powers to benefit this country.
	[Interruption.] 
	We may as well say we are not going to accept its money if it wants to give us a grant from the social fund or wherever.
	[Interruption.] 
	My original opposition to the then Common Market and to what has evolved from that has always been one of sovereignty, but I recognise that sovereignty given away by this House can be reclaimed by this House; otherwise there would be no point in discussing a referendum or debating such issues. So on this occasion I support the Government’s decision.
	[Interruption.] 
	It is a wise one, it is in the best interests of those I represent, it is on a law and order issue, and it is one I fully support.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. Before I call the next speaker, I do not expect to hear you, Mr Carswell, continually shouting across the Chamber at Members who are speaking, as you just did to the previous speaker. Just because you are sitting further away from me than you did in the past does not mean I cannot hear you, and I would be grateful if you listened to the debate.

Chris Heaton-Harris: It is a great privilege to follow a true Eurosceptic.
	In my brief contribution I do not intend to expand on my concerns about the individual measures. In fact, I would welcome a number of the individual measures in this package if we were able to have the final say on them in this House and in our judicial system. But I worry about it happening in one sweep with little debate about the principle of why we are taking away parliamentary and judicial sovereignty in the area of justice and home affairs and allowing the European Court of Justice to have the final say. I am a bit surprised that that did not rate a mention in the shadow Home Secretary’s opening speech, given that it is such a big issue.
	To help me to prove my point about the direction of travel that justice and home affairs matters are taking in the European Commission, I should like to quote the former European Commission vice-president, Viviane Reding. She has said:
	“In the space of just a few years,”—
	since the three pillars were collapsed—
	“justice policy has come into the limelight of European Union activity—comparable to the boost given to the single market in the 1990s. We have come a long way, but there is more to do to develop a true European area of Justice”.
	We do not talk much about that in the House. The closest we came to having a proper discussion on it was when we were talking about the European public prosecutor’s office in our debates on the European Union Act 2011, in which we discussed referendum locks. I think that all the parties agreed that that was an area of concern and a red line that we would not cross—all the parties bar the Lib Dems, of course. Now, however, the establishment of the policy is part of the EU area of justice. We must not mistake the direction in which we are heading.
	Why am I concerned about giving Europe the ability to enact and police legislation in this area? Most of the EU operates under a different system of law from ours, and I do not believe that the European Commission is
	the body that should be making the UK’s and England’s criminal law. The European Court of Justice should not have the ability to override the primacy of this Parliament or of the English judiciary in these areas. The ECJ has become so prominent because almost everything the European Union does tends to become legally binding and eventually subject to review by EU judges or national courts acting on their behalf. That reflects a European tendency to move difficult political conflicts, such as the eurozone crisis and the EU’s 2013 fiscal compact, away from ministerial gatherings and towards apolitical groups of national experts, the legal realm and the courts.
	Member states are discussing plans for a European public prosecutor, which may be created among a core group of countries under the Lisbon treaty. The European Parliament is helping to design jail sentences for rogue traders and people who do wrong in financial institutions, and the European Commission will start taking EU Governments to court over criminal justice standards from December 2014 onwards.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is making a really powerful speech. Will not tonight’s decision also signal to the country the views of MPs in relation to the European Union?

Chris Heaton-Harris: Quite possibly.
	The EU now has well over 150 mainly framework decisions in the area of justice and home affairs, many of which involve intergovernmental accords. The Commission cannot yet enforce those accords and EU nationals cannot yet claim rights based on them. However, the Lisbon treaty allows framework decisions to be enforced before the courts in the same manner as single market legislation, but only after December 2014—the same time as our proposed block opt-in. We are not even opting back in to the justice and home affairs system as it operates today; we are opting in to something quite new. None the less, the ECJ has already produced around 50 judgments to do with police and justice co-operation. That is because 19 member states have already voluntarily accepted the Court’s jurisdiction, to enable their own courts be clear as to the exact scope and meaning of each individual EU crime and policing agreement. December 2014, which is just a couple of weeks away, will still represent a watershed. The ECJ will start to create a jurisprudence in an area that really should be a matter for the British courts, the British Parliament and British justice. I am afraid that I shall have to vote against the motion this evening.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I find myself utterly at one with my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) on this matter. I support the Government on these issues because it is the first duty of any Government to protect their citizens. It is in that spirit that I support the motion, notwithstanding any concerns that we might have about our relationship with Europe or the sovereignty of this House. In our increasingly interconnected world, criminal activity recognises no international boundaries. Consequently, the need for international co-operation in the fight against crime is essential if we are to keep our people safe.
	I appreciate, and am sympathetic to, the sincere concerns that have been expressed by colleagues, but for me this is about practicality and I am satisfied that the Government have exercised their right to opt in only to those measures that will enhance the operational capacity of our law enforcement agencies. The simple truth is this: it is very easy for a wanted criminal simply to leg it to the Costa del Sol or scuttle across the channel. I want our law enforcement agencies to get their hands on these people—people who are plotting terrorism and people who are engaged in serious crime.
	As hon. Members know, I represent a constituency that has significant port interests, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes. That perhaps explains why we may be more naturally Eurosceptic on many issues, but on this one we are influenced by hard-headed pragmatism about what needs to be done to tackle international crime.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend says that it is very easy for people to get from one country to another and that we need to do something about these crimes. Surely the solution would be to make it much harder to get from one country to another. What we should be doing is stopping this free movement of people which is allowing all these criminals to come through our border controls daily with impunity. Surely that is what we should be dealing with.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We are very short of time, and I am trying to protect the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who has been waiting patiently to speak. Taking interventions from people, however eminent, who have just entered the Chamber in the past few minutes would not really be fair on the final speakers.

Jackie Doyle-Price: Thank you for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. All I would say is that often such people are evading our border controls, so it is a lot more complicated than my hon. Friend says.
	I have witnessed at first hand, in the ports in my constituency, just how difficult it is for Border Force and for the police to tackle the activities of serious and well-organised international criminal gangs, and that work relies on international co-operation. Members will recall that only last summer a metal container containing a number of fleeing Afghan Sikhs was intercepted at Tilbury. Anyone who spends an amount of time in a poorly ventilated metal container is dicing with death—they are playing Russian roulette with their life. They have to be desperate to do that and there are people willing to exploit that desperation and make considerable sums out of them. We are not going to be able to tackle that kind of people trafficking without having good, strong international co-operation. In witnessing that incident, it was impressive to see how quickly arrests were made, and that was very much due to the co-operation between law enforcement agencies in the various ports that that container had travelled through. In that event, the perpetrators came from within our own jurisdiction, but that is not always the case. Such people trafficking is happening every day,
	and we have to get a lot sharper and smarter at dealing with it. These measures will be an important tool in doing so.
	I am grateful for the changes the Government have made to the European arrest warrant, which go a long way to tackling many of the concerns that have been expressed in this debate about people’s liberties and the need to make sure that people will not be extradited for offences that would not be offences in this country. I feel strongly that we will be vigilant about that, that we will make sure the process continues to operate in a way that underlines the need for justice, and that we will always be vigilant in protecting the liberties of our own subjects. The reality is that the EAW will be deployed only in dealing with the most serious crime—murder, manslaughter, rape, terrorism, war crimes and people trafficking. Much as I dislike the EU, I am not going to get in the way of justice for victims of such offences, and let perverts and murderers walk free.
	There are some outside this House who would rather engage in an ideological war about Europe than do what is necessary to keep our people safe—I am not in that category. If I thought these measures were not necessary, I would not support them. There is a very real debate to be had about our relationship with Europe, and it is one that Conservative Members are determined to have before letting the people decide in a referendum. In the meantime, lets give our law enforcement agencies the tools they need to do the job to keep us safe.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: May I begin by thanking the shadow Home Secretary for bringing forward this debate? In a wonderful spirit of bipartisanship, she has spared the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary their honour. Thanks to the right hon. Lady, the Prime Minister’s promise to have a debate on the European arrest warrant has been met. That shows an admirable, broad-minded, good-spiritedness although we are still some time from Christmas. I will not dwell unduly on the procedures, as those were covered quite thoroughly last week, other than to remind the House of what was said in the other place on Monday. The dissatisfaction is not limited to this Chamber. My noble Friend Lord Boswell, who is not a hard-nosed, hatchet-faced Eurosceptic, said:
	“The problem now is a handling issue. The Government—particularly the Home Office—seem to be crippled by fear. Instead of encouraging a frank debate and a clear vote on their decision, they have resorted to undignified and ultimately self-defeating procedural dodges.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 November 2014; Vol. 757, c. 333.]
	That is an extraordinary statement to be made in their lordships’ House, which is a much less aggressive, more kindly place than this Chamber sometimes.
	I want to move on to the substance of the issue. With seven seconds for each of the 35 articles into which we are opting, I will not try to cover every one of them; I feel obliged to stick to the arrest warrant and answer the point that the arrest warrant is not essential to extradition. It is perfectly possible to have extradition arrangements either with the European Union or with individual nation states, as we do with the United States of America. That is then outside the ambit of the European Court of Justice. It is the Court of Justice of the European Union that is at the heart of the matter. Constitutionally,
	it is the real problem, because all our safeguards are speculative—the Home Secretary admits that herself. It has not yet been judged by the Court of Justice as to whether those safeguards will be upheld, and there is no appetite within Europe for reforming the basis of the arrest warrant. I am glad to see the Home Secretary returning to her place.
	In evidence given to the European Scrutiny Committee, it was made clear that efforts to rewrite the details of the arrest warrant to put in some of the protections did not meet with any support. When a representative of the Commission gave evidence to the Lords’ Extradition Law Committee, she said that there was no willingness to transform the arrest warrant to bring in those safeguards. The European Court of Justice, an ambitious court that has historically extended its powers to cover an increasing number of areas, will be in charge of how extradition from this country takes place from 1 December. That is very dangerous, because it risks some of those things that we in this country hold most dear; it risks people being extradited to countries that do not have habeas corpus.

Peter Bone: My hon. Friend is making a most powerful speech; he has persuaded me tonight to vote against this measure. As a good Tory, I always vote against Opposition motions anyway. Will he expand a little more on his point?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Gentleman will speak briefly so that we can get to the wind-ups. I am afraid that his hon. Friend has shaved a minute off his time; he has 47 seconds.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Habeas corpus is at risk. We also risk bringing in the European public prosecutor, because if that body is created—and it is under discussion—we will find that it can get the member states that join to issue arrest warrants, circumventing the protection that we have in our own law and the referendum lock. Of absolutely crucial importance is this issue of mutual recognition. Once we start with mutual recognition, we then set similar standards, and our justice will have crept away. The arrest warrant is very dangerous; it is against Tory party policy. The procedure has been dreadful and we should defeat it this evening.

David Hanson: I appreciate the fact that we have had this debate. The Labour party, Her Majesty’s Opposition, called this debate because we believe that the House of Commons should be given a chance to speak, to debate, and ultimately to vote on and, I hope, endorse the principles behind the European arrest warrant. The Government Front-Bench team might disagree with this, but we did have a shambles of a debate not one week ago. By calling this debate in Opposition time, we have served a purpose. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) for acknowledging that; we are here to help. The Government and the Liberal Democrats agree with the motion. Half the Conservative Back Benchers agree with the motion, as do the vast majority of Opposition Members, so it is important that we proceed with the policy.

William Cash: rose—

David Hanson: I have only a few moments to speak so, if I may, I would like to make some progress.
	Getting to this point has involved a long and tortuous procedure, as the Home Secretary recognised. My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is no longer in the Chamber, said that his Committee published a report on the matter on 29 October 2013, and we are now only 12 days away from 1 December 2014. The matter has been debated by the Justice Committee and the European Scrutiny Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash).
	The process by which we have got where we are today has been a shambles. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) reminded us of his contribution to last week’s debate of claiming to move “That the Question, That be Question be not now put, be now put,” which is second in parliamentary history only to when I wore a top hat on the Opposition Back Benches to make a point of order during a Division some 20 years ago.
	Hon. Members have set out several reasons why we should not sign up to the European arrest warrant and the other measures. They have said that doing so represents a transfer of power and that that subjugates UK law. They have said that UK standards of justice will not be met, that the warrant has the word “European” in its name, and that extradition should be dealt with in individual treaties. We also heard the serious point that innocent people may face an unfair procedure in a foreign court, which was cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) and the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who has a great deal of experience of these matters, as well as the hon. Members for Stone, for Aldridge-Brownhills (Sir Richard Shepherd) and for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris). The hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell), who is also no longer in the Chamber, pledged UKIP’s 100% support for opposing the motion—it was extremely satisfactory that he agreed with himself.
	Such strong points demonstrate that there are genuine issues, which I do not decry. It is important that we consider them, but I disagree with the points made. I take the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), as hon. Members would expect, but I also respect the views of my hon. Friends the Members for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), the right hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), who all pointed out that the measure is about bringing criminals to justice.
	I confess that I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis), but he made the valuable point that changes have been made. I can let him into a secret: we supported those changes during their passage through Parliament and we did so because we know, like the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and others, that the measure means that foreign national criminals will be deported back to their home countries to face justice, that criminals will face trial here, and that there will be justice for victims against whom heinous crimes have been committed. I welcomed the contribution of the hon. Member for
	Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who put his latent Euroscepticism to one side for a moment to recognise that the issue is about crime, not Europe, and about bringing criminals to justice to ensure that they spend time in prison, not on sun loungers in Spain.

Paul Farrelly: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Hanson: With respect, my hon. Friend has not been in the Chamber throughout the debate. I have only two more minutes in which to speak, and as I did not take an intervention from the hon. Member for Stone, who has been present for the entire debate, I hope that my hon. Friend understands that I must be fair and not give way.
	The Labour party believes strongly in retaining the European arrest warrant and the other measures to keep our communities safe, to protect our borders and to stop criminals from fleeing justice. More than 1,000 foreign criminals were deported last year under the European arrest warrant for drug trafficking, murder, fraud, child sex offences and rape. As we have heard from Members on both sides of the House, this is about co-operating with European partners to ensure that people who have committed these serious crimes do not get away with them. Senior members of the Association of Chief Police Officers and police officers working for international agencies such as Interpol recognise the importance of dealing with such crimes. Fugitive teacher Jeremy Forrest, who fled to France with a schoolgirl, was extradited to England on a European arrest warrant in September 2012. Hussain Osman, who tried to blow up the centre of London in a terror attack, was brought back from Italy and is now serving 40 years in prison as a consequence of the European arrest warrant. Jason McKay, as my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West mentioned, was extradited from Poland within two weeks of murdering his partner—justice for a murdered woman.

Dominic Raab: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Hanson: Ordinarily I would, but I have literally one minute left.
	We support joint investigation teams, the exchange of criminal records, Europol, combating international child pornography and tackling international football hooliganism. Those are the measures that we have put before the House in the motion. Members, even those who have spoken against the European arrest warrant, must recognise that the Metropolitan police have dealt with 1,457 cases under the European arrest warrant over the past four years. For my local police force, North Wales police, the figure is 33; for the local force of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes, Humberside police, it is 83; and for the local force of the hon. Member for Stone, Staffordshire police, it is 52.
	This is not a tool for having an argument about Europe. The points made by Members who oppose the European arrest warrant have a validity that needs to be examined and discussed, but they are points that need to be got over, because this is about crime, bringing people to justice and ensuring that this House sends a
	strong signal to criminals that we support the European arrest warrant and will sign up to those 35 measures before 1 December.

Karen Bradley: I am grateful to all Members who have spoken. I know that many are frustrated that they did not get an opportunity, as they had expected, to do so last week. I am therefore glad that the Opposition have given back the hours they took away from the House when they decided to play politics with the matter then. I will try to address the points that have been made, but before doing so I will make a few of my own. Like my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I welcome the opportunity to stand here and reiterate this Government’s support for the package of 35 measures, including the arrest warrant, that help us tackle serious crimes and keep this country safe.

Julian Huppert: Will the Minister give way?

Karen Bradley: I am afraid not, because I am really short of time.
	I know that many hon. Members have concerns about the way the arrest warrant, in particular, has operated since the Labour party first signed us up to it more than a decade ago. That is why we will remain part not of the arrest warrant of old, but of a reformed arrest warrant, with greater protections for British citizens and others. The changes that this Government have made through the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 mean that the arrest warrant is no longer the one operated under the Labour party.
	First, this Government have changed the law to ensure that arrest warrants are refused for those suspected of minor offences. A British judge now considers whether the alleged offence and likely penalty is sufficient to make someone’s extradition proportionate, and it is a British judge who considers whether measures less coercive than extradition are available to foreign authorities.
	Secondly, the Government have clarified the rules on dual criminality to ensure that an arrest warrant must be refused if all or part of the conduct for which a person is wanted took place in the UK and is not a criminal offence in this country. The National Crime Agency is now refusing arrest warrants where it is obvious that the dual criminality test has not been met, and it has done so 59 times since our reforms came into force in July.
	Thirdly, the Government have changed the law to ensure that the issuing state must be trial-ready before individuals can be extradited. That will help to prevent lengthy periods of pre-trial detention, which I know have concerned some Members, as they have the Government. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois), who has campaigned so hard on that. It is the example of his constituent, Mr Andrew Symeou, that has resulted in the change we have made. All those changes have been made to UK law and came into effect earlier this year. Our reforms are based on existing laws and practices in other member states, and they are already making an important difference to the operation of the arrest warrant.
	The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, who I know will not be voting today, commented on the amount of debate there has been on the subject. It is worth pointing out that Ministers have spent more than 10 hours giving oral evidence to Committees and have answered almost 350 parliamentary questions on this matter. Since October 2012, Ministers have spent at least 18 hours debating or answering questions on the subject in this House, and at least 10 hours in the other place, and that does not include the three hours here this evening.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who has significant experience in dealing with these matters as a former colleague of mine in the Home Office, explained that this is an international arrest warrant that speeds up the process of finding and extraditing criminals. He made an extremely important point, because this is a public safety issue. He talked about trafficking being one of the biggest crimes that we face today—trafficking of drugs, of firearms, and of people. I know from my experience as the Minister with responsibility for modern slavery that the trafficking charities are incredibly keen for Britain to stay part of the arrest warrant mechanism because they know that it is so important in making sure that we tackle this heinous crime. He made a point that is worth repeating—that of the 5,000 people extradited from the UK under an arrest warrant, fewer than 5% are UK nationals. Furthermore, many member states do not extradite their own citizens. We must bear that in mind when we are considering whether it is appropriate not to be part of this arrest warrant mechanism.
	The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) raised ECJ jurisdiction, as did my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris). It is important to remind the House that Labour signed us up to the Lisbon treaty without a referendum. Labour is responsible for the position that we find ourselves in today, and we have to work within it. The important thing is that we protect our constituents—our citizens—in working within the constraints of the mechanisms arranged by Labour.
	I pay credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), because I know how hard he has worked on this matter and how much time he spends on dealing with it. I want to clarify the point he made about the Lord Chief Justice. The Lord Chief Justice wrote in a letter dated 10 November that he considered paragraph 20 of the European Union Committee report on this matter to be the correct interpretation of the situation. The report says that if the UK were to leave the EAW,
	“it is highly unlikely that these alternative arrangements”—
	the arrangements that this Government have put in place—
	“would address all the criticisms directed at the EAW. Furthermore, it is inevitable that the extradition process would become more protracted and cumbersome, potentially undermining public safety.”
	The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) talked about the position of the Scottish Executive. I remind him that as a result of significant discussions that Ministers have conducted with the Scottish Government, this Government decided to join the European judicial network rather than the European
	genocide network because the Scottish Government specifically wanted us to be part of that, and we listened and made sure that we were part of it.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash)—my constituency next-door neighbour—is an expert on all matters EU. I have enjoyed many of his local speeches and comments about the EU. He asked what is special about the EU. My answer is that we need the best extradition arrangements we can have. We should not turn our back on the opportunity to have great extradition arrangements, where they are available, just because Europe is involved.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) has significant experience of extraditions under the old system. His examples from the Thames valley region really brought home how important this matter is.
	The hon. Member for Clacton (Douglas Carswell), who has not returned to his seat, said that there was 100% agreement within his party. I hope he spoke to its economics spokesman before he made those comments, because he may find that that is not the case.
	I want to make a point about prima facie evidence. It is not a requirement under the 1957 extradition convention that requesting states provide prima facie evidence when submitting a request. Therefore, leaving the arrest warrant and reverting to the 1957 convention would not have meant that all requests had to be accompanied by prima facie evidence.
	Hon. Members have made many other good points. I was pleased to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) say that this is about law and order and working within the rules of the EU as they stand at the moment.

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
	Question agreed to.
	MainQuestion accordinglyput.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 421, Noes 29.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House endorses the Government’s formal application to rejoin 35 European Union Justice and Home Affairs measures, including the European Arrest Warrant.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Dawn Primarolo: With the leave of the House, I propose to take motions 4 to 7 together.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Terms and Conditions of Employment

That the draft Maternity and Parental Leave etc. (Amendment) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.

Legal Services

That the draft Referral Fees (Regulators and Regulated Persons) Regulations 2014, which were laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.
	That the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales) (Modification of Functions) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.
	That the draft Legal Services Act 2007 (Chartered Institute of Legal Executives) (Modification of Functions) Order 2014, which was laid before this House on 13 October, be approved.—(Gavin Barwell.)
	Question agreed to.

HUMAN RIGHTS (BURMA)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Gavin Barwell.)

David Burrowes: It is a pleasure to have secured this debate, which follows my visit to Burma last month. Since then there have been much more notable visits, not least last week by President Obama and the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who were in the country for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations east Asia summit. President Obama delivered a clear and unequivocal message of concern that Burma’s reform process, which began three years ago with such hope and was welcomed by Members in all parts of the House, has sadly stalled and in some respects gone into reverse. That is why the debate is particularly timely—it means that we can hear from the Government about their concern. I suggest that they will join the chorus of disapproval about the lack of progress on the reforms. The previous week, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi delivered the same message. I know that the Government listen carefully to her, and we need to respond accordingly.
	At the same time, Harvard law school has published a report accusing the Burmese army of war crimes and crimes against humanity, following not just a fly-by look but a four-year investigation. I ask the Minister for his response to the suggestion that reforms have stalled and, in some respects, slid backwards. Do the Government agree with Harvard law school’s conclusions that the military in Burma have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity? That backs up other human rights reports that we have brought to the House’s attention over a number of years—it is good to see a number of friends of Burma in the Chamber. What Government action should follow?
	I visited Burma just over a month ago courtesy of the human rights organisation Christian Solidarity Worldwide. We visited Rangoon and Myitkyina, the capital of war-torn Kachin state in the north of the country. I left with mixed feelings. One has to recognise that significant and welcome changes have occurred in Burma in the past three years. I had the privilege of delivering three public lectures focused on the relationship between parliamentary democracy, human rights and civil society. They were given to three distinct audiences: to the British Council in Rangoon, where I understand the Minister also spoke; to civil society and religious leaders in Kachin state, organised by a remarkable organisation called the Humanity Institute; and to at least 150 people from a range of political, ethnic and religious backgrounds, who in many ways represented the future of Burma—diversity in unity. They showed us the thirst for democracy and human rights. That meeting was organised by young activists from Aung San Suu Kyi’s party, the National League for Democracy, in the restaurant that was previously the office of the father of democracy in Burma, the independence leader General Aung San.

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene; I asked his permission beforehand.
	When the Nobel peace prize laureate Aung San Suu Kyi was released from house arrest in 2010, many of us thought it was a move towards real democracy.
	Unfortunately, as the hon. Gentleman said, more recently there has been persecution of Christians to such an extent that Burma is now 23rd on the world watch list in that respect. That indicates how much has happened. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern about the persecution of Christians who are being brutally abused, attacked and killed and having their churches damaged as a result of their beliefs?

David Burrowes: I do, and one focus of my visit was to meet a number of Church leaders across Burma who are expressing the same concern. Although for some reason there is not quite the same visible outright discrimination, it is going on and people are not able to build churches. The army may leave, pagodas are put up, and Christian communities are displaced. I will go on to address concerns about religious liberty, not just for the Christian community but for the Muslim community, which is being severely persecuted.
	I was accompanied on my visit by Ben Rogers of Christian Solidarity Worldwide. He is a remarkable young man whom many of us know well. He is a champion of democracy for Burma, and perhaps one symbol of progress was when we learned that his book “Than Shwe: Unmasking Burma’s Tyrant” has, without his knowledge, been translated into Burmese and is being sold on street corners in its thousands. That is a good example of unstoppable momentum, and the thirst for freedom and democracy is shown by that distribution. The opportunities that I experienced when I visited would have been inconceivable three years ago.
	It is right to welcome the fact that Burma has taken a significant step along the road to reform and democracy, but this House, with the particular responsibilities of this country, must highlight the serious concerns of and challenges facing the people of Burma. According to the Free Burma Rangers, which is a humanitarian organisation working in Burma’s ethnic areas—it is very much in these areas that we see the worst situations—so far this year there have been 168 clashes between the Burmese army and armed ethnic resistance forces. That is at a time when the Government, the army and ethnic nationalities are engaged in ceasefire talks, and the Government promise a peace process. During that process, however, rape, torture and the killing of civilians continue, and a significant military offensive has continued in Shan state since June.

Valerie Vaz: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate and on his trip with Ben Rogers to Burma. Does he agree that there are still concerns about the census? Britain gave £10 million towards the census, and the Rohingya have been excluded. Ahead of President Obama’s visit, although 3,000 prisoners were released, I do not think any were political prisoners. Are we taking a step back in terms of constitutional change?

David Burrowes: I shall address a number of those points in my remarks, but yes, Britain has responsibility and involvement, and it supported the census, which in principle is a good approach. However, it has also brought into sharp relief the state of the Rohingya people, who are stateless. They are the most persecuted of peoples, not just in Burma but around the world, and their lack of full citizenship is a real litmus test for Burma.
	I shall deal later with the constitutional issue, but the hon. Lady’s point about political prisoners was well made. One does not have to look just at the visit of President Obama—when President Thein Sein came to this country, it was made clear that all political prisoners would be released. The Prime Minister welcomed that, as did we, but it has not come to fruition. People are playing about with what we mean by political prisoner, but in reality that crucial commitment has not been honoured.

David Ward: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. Does he have anything to report on Rakhine state action plan and the proposed resettlement of a large number of Rohingya out of their own area?

David Burrowes: When I was in Burma, leaked documents were in the public domain, and the issue is causing real concern. In the words of Human Rights Watch, if the plan was followed through it would be
	“a blueprint for permanent segregation and statelessness.”
	The plan would involve the construction of temporary camps for those who refuse to abandon the name Rohingya, with a view to relocating them to third countries. That is abhorrent, and they would be forced or obliged to identify themselves as Bengali in order to be considered for citizenship. That plan certainly needs to be condemned and I hope the Minister will be able to do that.
	Last week, the United States called for a new plan to be developed. I hope the Government can support that call. The UN Secretary-General called for the rights of the Rohingya people to be respected. This is a good opportunity for the Minister to make it abundantly clear, as he has done previously, that any plan that involves such segregation into camps and forces Rohingya to identify as Bengali is totally and utterly unacceptable.

Margot James: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I share his acknowledgement of the progress that Burma has made in the area of greater political freedoms, but when I visited Burma at the beginning of the year the apparatus of a police state was still in evidence. Citizens spoke to me in hushed tones, fearful of being overheard, about the oppression of the Rohingya Muslim minority, among other matters.

David Burrowes: That is right. It is easy for us, from afar, to see the obvious discrimination against the Rohingya people. Even those who are on the side of democracy and reform are challenged by the issue. We can see clearly that, in the long term, for there to be a truly democratic free state there have to be equal rights, including for the Rohingya people. The abuse of the Rohingya people continues. Fortify Rights has documented such abuses showing that Government authorities have been involved in trafficking Rohingya out of the country and profiting from it. I encourage the Minister to raise this subject directly with the Government of Burma.
	I invite the Minister to give an assessment of the peace process and the steps our Government are taking to urge the Government of Burma and their military to observe ceasefires, stop further offences and stop the further militarisation that I saw and heard about, particularly in Kachin state. I was in Myitkyina and visited a camp for internally displaced Kachin people.
	They were surviving in very basic conditions. Access to medical care and education was frankly woeful. They had fled their villages following attacks by the Burmese army. Their plea was genuine:
	“We want to go back to our villages but the army are still there and we do not feel secure. Our request is for genuine peace.”
	We met the Kachin Independence Organisation, which is involved in negotiations. It saw a particular role for the United Kingdom:
	“We Kachin are longing for the involvement of the United Kingdom as a strong advocate for peace.”
	I invite the Minister to respond to that call.
	While in Kachin state, I was particularly moved by meeting the wives of Kachin men who had been arbitrarily arrested, imprisoned and tortured. One told me how her husband’s torturers heated a knife in a fire and then sliced his skin, rubbed bamboo poles up and down his shins, subjected him to water torture and stamped on him. A man described being forced to kneel on very sharp stones with his arms outstretched as if on a cross, a physically painful position to be in for a long time but also a deliberate mockery of his Christian faith. A hand grenade was placed in his mouth. Others claimed that male prisoners were forced to engage in sex, and to beat each other with sticks.
	I met another man, Brang Shawng, who, after reporting the rape—victimisation is going on; we are not just talking about historical abuse—and murder of his own daughter Ja Seng Ing by Burmese army soldiers, found that he was the one on trial, charged with defamation. That is unacceptable. There is a continuing catalogue of human rights abuses taking place. This is not just historical. Justice is not only being delayed but denied. No one is being called to account and we need to see that happening. Various institutions of government and the application of the rule of law are in their infancy, but the scale of human rights abuse and the lack of justice need proper attention.
	The Humanity Institute told me that on the issue of sexual violence, on which our Government have rightly taken a lead with the preventing sexual violence initiative, Burma is, thankfully, on the list. It needs to be a priority case. The institute told me that there have been 12 cases of sexual violence in the past six months of 2014 in northern Shan state alone. In just that one part of Burma, there has been that much sexual violence, with the youngest victim reported to be three and the oldest 40.
	Will the Minister reaffirm the Government’s commitment to urge the Burmese Government to stop the torture, the rape and the impunity and, crucially, to ensure that perpetrators are held to account? Will he also encourage my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, whom I have forewarned of this request, in his capacity as the Prime Minister’s special representative on preventing sexual violence in conflict, to prioritise and visit Burma to address issues of sexual violence there? I hope that the commitment made will continue beyond the election. Burma is one place we need to visit if we are to tackle the perpetual use of sexual violence as a weapon of war.
	I met a representative of Burma’s Rohingya Muslims, whom I have referred to already and who, as others have pointed out, are among the most persecuted peoples in the world. Despite having lived in Burma for generations, they have been stripped of their citizenship and rendered stateless, and two years ago they suffered appalling violence that resulted in thousands living in dire conditions
	in camps. I visited a camp for internally displaced people that was in poor condition, and I understand from reports that the condition of these camps is absolutely shocking. The Rohingya continue to experience segregation and further dehumanisation. I ask the Minister, particularly in the light of the leaked action plan, to respond to these concerns.
	Beyond the particular issue of the Rohingya people, wider religious intolerance against Muslims in Burma is causing serious concern. In the past two years, a wave of violence and hatred has swept the country. Aung San Suu Kyi, whom I had the privilege to meet, expressed concern about religious intolerance and said that some were using religion for political purposes. Will the Minister press the Burmese Government to hold to account all those inciting violence or hatred and to ensure inter-religious harmony? This is an opportunity for Burma, with its melting pot of religions, to show that freedom of religion is a foundation of true democracy.
	The proposed legislation restricting inter-religious marriage and religious conversion, about which there is great concern, must be abandoned as soon as possible. Ultimately, however, the most significant test of Burma’s democratic reforms are the elections in 2015. During my visit, some were concerned that they would be postponed and that the Government were playing games, but I understand that the election commission in Burma has confirmed they will go ahead next October or November. However, Aung San Suu Kyi’s clear message to us was that they had to be fair, free and on time. Without amendments to the constitution enabling her to stand for the presidency; without international monitors in place some months before—Britain could play a role in that—to assess the climate in which the campaign is held; without further legislative reform to end the arbitrary arrest and imprisonment of activists and protesters; and without the release of all remaining prisoners, it is difficult to see how the elections can be free and fair. What pressure is being brought to bear on the Burmese Government to amend the constitution?
	Britain and the international community must be vigilant and heed the words not only of Aung San Suu Kyi but of those I met from the different ethnic nationalities, civil society and so on, all of whom, without exception, told me that reforms had stalled. We need to ensure that further religious strife does not get in the way of true freedom and democracy.
	Despite the gloom and despair over the lack of reform, I was most impressed by those who expressed the greatest determination and commitment to the pathway of democratic reform. I am talking about those who have the most reason to feel bitter and negative and to give up, the former political prisoners, who instead spoke to me about the culture of dialogue, about which they were still positive. It is the duty of this House and this Government to be on their side and to help ensure that society in Burma is free and fair.

Hugo Swire: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) on securing this debate, and I welcome his insights following
	his recent visit to Burma. I also pay tribute to his continuing work and indeed that of many right hon. and hon. Members across the House in supporting human rights and democracy in that country.
	As the House will know, I, too, take a close personal interest, and visited Rakhine state in 2012 and Kachin state earlier this year—the first western Minister to travel to the former and first British Minister to visit the latter since Burma’s independence. In common with my hon. Friend, I visited camps for internally displaced people in both places, and I agree with him on the dire conditions that they face.
	The British Government unapologetically support Burma’s transition. Unlike some, we have always seen the need to encourage the green shoots of reform where they exist, but I can assure the House that human rights remain firmly at the heart of our engagement, even if those who do not share our approach are determined to find ways sometimes to suggest otherwise. Being a true friend to Burma has meant being an honest and sometimes a critical friend, and we have been honest that much more needs to be done.
	The hon. Member for Bradford East (Mr Ward), my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate, raised the plight of the Rohingya, which is one of the greatest challenges Burma faces. The UK is giving £12 million in humanitarian support to Rakhine state and a further £4.5 million towards projects that support livelihoods. Some of the Burmese Government’s steps to address the complex and inter-related challenges in Rakhine state are to be welcomed, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate rightly points out, parts of the Rakhine action plan would, if implemented, undermine the prospects for peaceful co-existence and stability across Rakhine state.
	I made our concerns very clear again when I met the Burmese Minister for Immigration and the Rakhine Chief Minister during their visit to London in October. I also repeated our concern that the Rohingya had been unable to self-designate their ethnicity during the census.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate mentioned Kachin in particular. We welcome the continuing peace talks between the Burmese Government and all the ethnic armed groups, and agreement was reached to work towards a national ceasefire and a political dialogue. I have serious concerns, however, about the continued fighting in Kachin state and northern Shan state, as well as about continued reports of human rights violations. I raised these concerns directly with the northern commander in Kachin during my visit in January. During that visit, I, too, was able to meet the Christian Baptist convention and the Shan ethnic minority group to hear about the human rights abuses they have suffered.
	My hon. Friend raised the issue of the trafficking of the Rohingya across the region, and I share his concern. As is well known, this Government have a strong track record of opposing trafficking wherever it is to be found. We have regularly raised the issue with the Burmese Government, and I discussed it with the Bangladeshi Foreign Minister when I met him in the Asia-Europe meeting in Milan in October.
	My hon. Friend raised, too, the proposed legislation on inter-faith marriage and religious conversion. We have made clear to Burmese parliamentarians and Ministers
	that, if enacted, these laws would contravene international standards and treaties to which Burma is a signatory.
	The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised the issue—he always does in these and other debates, and quite rightly, too—of violence against Christians. Foreign Office officials regularly meet representatives of all Burmese faiths, here and in Burma, to discuss these matters, which are of great concern to us.
	Sexual violence was another significant and important issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate. I raised this directly with the Minister for Immigration in October, and with the President’s office, the commander in chief and the northern commander during my visit in January. Notwithstanding the horrific stories that my hon. Friend has related to us, I welcome, as he would and did, the Burmese Government’s endorsement of the declaration, following considerable lobbying from the UK, by attending the global summit in June, to which he alluded. However, I will continue to encourage the Burmese Government to follow up their commitments with concrete action. It is of course for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—who, I am sure, follows our proceedings closely, and will read the report of the debate in Hansard tomorrow morning—to decide whether to pursue the matter.
	I share my hon. Friend’s deep concern about the extremely serious findings of the Harvard law school report. A judgment on whether war crimes have been committed—an issue that has often raised in the House, although I do not think that it has been raised by the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz)—is, of course, a matter for the courts. However—this is in response to my hon. Friend’s points about accountability—we have made it absolutely clear to the Burmese Government that any allegations of human rights abuses, including these, must be dealt with by a clear, independent and transparent judicial process that meets international standards.
	Both my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Walsall South raised the issue of political prisoners. In March 2011, the Assistance Association for Political Prisoners reported that 2,073 political prisoners were being held in Burma. In October 2014, it reported that 75 were being held. During the intervening time, some 2,000 political prisoners had been released.
	I am well aware that arrests and sentencing of political activists continue, and that some of those activists have been released and re-arrested several times. As I said in response to a question from the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) in the most recent session of Foreign Office questions,
	“one political prisoner…is one too many”.—[Official Report, 28 October 2014; Vol. 587, c. 168.]
	We will continue to lobby until all political prisoners in Burma have been released unconditionally.
	My hon. Friend asked what pressure we are putting on the Burmese Government to amend the constitution and hold credible elections. The Prime Minister raised both issues with President Thein Sein earlier this month at the G20 summit in Brisbane, and I have raised them with Ministers several times. Inclusive and credible elections are obviously critical for Burma’s future, and the international community is watching very closely during the months that lead up to those elections.

David Burrowes: What about the suggestion that international monitors should be present for the lead-up to the elections?

Hugo Swire: We would certainly want to consider that. Ultimately, it is for the Burmese Government to decide whether to accept international monitors, but the international community would be reassured that the elections were fair, transparent and credible—all the things that we are calling for—if they could be independently and internationally observed. I always think that, by default, elections should be observed by international figures other than those who are benefiting from or taking part in them. I think that that is manifestly a good thing and that we should encourage it—not just in elections in Burma, the United Kingdom or any other country, but in any elections—in order to ensure that things are done properly and in accordance with norms and, of course, the law.
	We know that much more needs to be done in Burma, and, as we approach the elections, we also know that progress, as we see it, is not necessarily guaranteed. We remain in close contact with Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, who has made it clear that the reform process is going through a difficult phase and that reforms have stalled in some areas. We are by no means complacent. We also recognise the significant steps that the Burmese Government have taken, and we are realistic. A transition from a dictatorship was never going to be easy. As President Obama said during his visit to Burma last week,
	“change is hard and it doesn't always move in a straight line”.
	It is now vital that we do not stand back and simply say that it is all too difficult. Throughout the United Kingdom there is a deep well of support for Burma’s efforts to fulfil its enormous potential. We therefore need to maintain Britain’s full-blooded engagement with all parts of Burma’s society—which will include the valuable contribution of our parliamentarians—and to do everything possible to maintain the momentum on this difficult road to democracy.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate for the opportunity to set out, yet again, the Government’s position on Burma.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.